.-^^ .0- >^. .0 o %"- nOcp,. ^^.^ v^ ^x •>, >t ' i 4 ^ ■^oo^ :, ':^o"-^ ' A ,0 a ,s>^- ^'^ ^^ ^^A-^ ,0 0^ t- ^C>0^ ,0o 'OO' -.•i,y-^ ^^^' ^> >./^,t: vOo ^>^^s.., V* -"'>'■ heory and Practice of the Confessional A GUIDE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE By DR. CASPAR E. SCHIELER, Professor of Moral Theology at the Diocesan Seminary of Mayence Edited by REV. H. J. HEUSER, D.D., Professor of Theology at Overbrook Seminary o o o o o Introduction by the MOST REV. S. G. MESSMER, D.D., D.C.L., Archbishop of Milwaukee o o o ik NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO BENZIGER BROTHERS PRINTERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE 1905 ,r LIBRARY of CONGRESS Two Copies Received NOV 20 1905 Copyricht Entry CLASS REMIGIUS LAFORT, Censor Librorum Imprimatur. 1^ JOHN M. FARLEY, Archbishop of New York New York, Aug. 31, 1905 Copyright, 1905, by Benziger Brothers. INTRODUCTION "There is nothing more excellent or more useful for the Church of God and the welfare of souls than the office of Con- fessor. By his sacred ministry the sinner is lightened of the burden of sin, freed from the yoke of Satan and concupiscence, and clothed again with the robe of innocence previously lost. Weak knees are confirmed (Is. xxxv. 3) ; that is, men weak and idle in mind receive new vigor, and lastly the just are aroused and enkindled to persevere in goodness and to reach with freshly spurred zeal for the crown of justice laid up for them (2 Tim. iv. 8). "How great and arduous is the office of Confessor appears clearly from the fact that by it he is made a judge in the place of Christ and that of his judgment he must some day render a strict account to the Supreme Judge. To him, therefore, apply the words with which the pious king of Israel charged the judges appointed by him, 'Take heed what you do: for you exercise not the judgment of man, but of the Lord God; and whatever you judge, it shall redound to you' (2 Paral. xix. 6). In this tribunal, however, the priest may not consider himself to be only a Judge to hear the culprit's confession, to correct him, and then, having imposed sentence, to send him away. He must also act the part of the Shepherd and, following the example of the Good Shepherd, must know his sheep, bring back to the fold those that strayed away and fell among thorns, and finally lead them unto wholesome pastures and the waters of eternal refreshment. He must be a Physician giving suitable remedies to the sick, and treating and healing with anxious and skillful VI INTRODUCTION hand the wounds of the soul. Lastly he must be a Father, and like the father in the Gospel cheerfully receive with the kiss of peace the prodigal son returning from exile, where he had been lost and consumed by hunger and filth; he must vest the son found again with the first robe, refresh him with the fatted calf and delicious dishes, and restore him to the former place and dignity of heir and son. " Therefore let the priest who goes to hear confession seriously ponder over these offices of judge, shepherd, physician, and father, and endeavor, as far as in him lies, to fulfill them in deed and work. Above all let him remember that he acts in the place of Christ and as an ambassador for God, as the Apostle often tells us" (Cone. Bait. PL II. nn. 278, 279, 280). The present volume is a practical commentary upon these weighty words of the Fathers of the Baltimore Council. The tremendous responsibility of the Catholic priest exercising the ministry of the Sacrament of Penance must appear in a truly dazzling light to the mind of every one who but glances over the following pages. Human intelligence can never fully grasp the true significance of this divine sacrament, which works at the same time forgiveness of sin and sanctification by grace; which is for poor fallen man at once the judgment of God's infinite hatred of sin and the manifestation of His infinite mercy for the repentant sinner; which brings humiliation and punishment while it fills the soul returning to God with un- speakable joy and comfort. Who can tell the number of souls troubled by sin and sinful temptations who have found peace and consolation, strength and holy courage in this sacrament? the number of souls kept not only for days, but for years in the bondage of evil passion and Satan who were, by the words of absolution, freed from that ignominious slavery and led again to enjoy the freedom of the children of God? the num- ber of souls snatched from the brink of perdition by the strong hand of God extended to them through His minister in the con- INTRODUCTION Vll fessional? the number of souls buried in spiritual death by grievous sin who were brought out from their tombs to super- natural life and the sunshine of heavenly grace by the power of sacramental confession? Only the book of life reveals them all. To be the minister of such a sacrament is, indeed, a glorious calling. Most excellent in itself and most useful for the Chris- tian people is the office of Confessor. But the Fathers of the Council tell us it is also a most arduous office. In very truth, the faithful administration of the Sacrament of Penance demands a great deal more of the personal cooperation of the minister with the recipient than any other sacrament. Not to mention the fact that in the other sacraments, marriage alone excepted, the acts of the recipient desirous to receive the sacrament have nothing directly to do with the substance and validity of the sacrament, while in confession these acts are not a mere condition, but form the materia ex qua the sacrament arises, there is not the slightest doubt whatever of the most serious and grave duty of the confessor to assist the penitent as far as possible towards a worthy and profitable confession. He is not only bound, as in all other sacraments, to insure the validity of the sacrament and to assure himself of the required disposi- tion of the recipient, but here more than elsewhere he must himself effect and bring forth, as well as he can, the worthy and right disposition of the penitent. Nor is this all. Confession is not merely to free the sinner from sin for a few passing mo- ments ; it must so strengthen his will and direct his heart that he will avoid the coming danger and resist the future tempta- tion. Herein lies the difficult and arduous task of the confessor. It is in the discharge of this duty that the priest needs all the love and charity, patience and meekness, of the spiritual father: all the prudence and close attention, the knowledge and experience of the spiritual physician ; all the understanding of the holy law and the firmness, impartiality, and discretion of the spiritual judge; the watchful care and patient search of Vlll INTRODUCTION the spiritual shepherd ; the holy knowledge and wisdom of the spiritual teacher; the fervid prayer, saintly life, and burning zeal for souls necessary to him who is to be the minister of Jesus Christ unto sinful man redeemed by His precious blood. Even this is not all. Confession is not only a means of cleansing the sinner from the stain of sin and vice, and of giving him strength and courage in the battle against tempta- tion ; but it is also to help the just and holy man to rise continu- ally higher on the ladder of Christian perfection. It is the sacrament for saint and sinner. The greatest saints of God in holy Church had the greatest reverence and desire for holy con- fession. St. Charles Borromeo went to confession every day. Hence the tender care of the flowers and fruits of Christian virtue in the heart of his penitent is another important duty of the father confessor. How is he to fulfill it in a manner profit- able to the penitent and to himself, unless he is well acquainted with the principles and facts of the spiritual life by a thorough study of Christian ascetics and the earnest practice of Christian perfection ? What a responsibility when a soul called by God to the higher walks of Christian life, and willing to follow the call, be it in the world or in the cloister, falls into the hands of an ignorant, neglectful, or heedless confessor ! But what glory to God, what happiness of soul, what merit for heaven, when by holy zeal and skillful effort the minister of God an holy confes- sion leads the Christian soul, panting after God as the hart panteth after the fountains of water (Ps. xlii. 2), into the sanctu- ary of God's love, grace, and mercy ! What a glorious ministry ! We can only hope and pray that Cathohc priests will care- fully read the beautiful and instructive lessons that Dr. Schieler's book offers, and ponder over them day and night. There is no greater blessing for Church and State, society and individual, than an army of priests who are confessors according to the spirit of Christ; for they are in a fuller sense than others '' good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Petr. iv. 10). « S. G. MESSMER. EDITOR'S PREFACE An English translation of Dr. Schieler's exhaustive work on ^'The Sacrament of Penance/' for the use of theological stu- dents and missionary priests, had been advised by some of our bishops and professors of theology. It was felt that, under present conditions, a work in the vernacular on a subject which involved to a very large extent the practical direction of souls was an actual necessity for many to whom the Latin texts deal- ing with the important questions of the Confessional w^re for one reason or another insufficient. There was one serious objection to the publication of a work in English, which, since it deals with most delicate subjects, might for this reason cause an unqualified or prejudiced reader to misunderstand or pervert its statements, so as to effect the very opposite of what is intended by the Church in her teaching of Moral and Pastoral Theology. Between the two dangers of a lack of sufficiently practical means to inform and direct the confessor and pastoral guide of souls in so difficult and broad a field as is presented by the missions in English-speaking coun- tries, and the fear that a manual from which the priest derives his helpful material of direction may fall into the hand of the ill-advised, for whom it was not intended, the latter seems the lesser evil, albeit it may leave its deeper impression upon cer- tain minds that see no difficulty in using the sources of informa- tion in which the Latin libraries abound. One proof of both the necessity and the superior advantage of having a vernacular expression of this branch of theological literature, for the use of students and priests in non-Latin coun- tries, is readily found in the fact that authorized scholarship and pastoral industry in Germany have long ago seen fit to supply this need for students in its theological faculties, and for priests on the mission, and that the benefit of such a course has shown itself far to overlap the accidental danger of an unprofessional use of the source of Moral Theology in the hands of a lay-reader, b PREFACE or one hostile to the CathoHc Church who might pervert its doc- trine and arouse the zeal of the prudish. The work was, therefore, not undertaken without serious weighing of the reasons for and against its expediency from the prudential as well as moral point of view. As a competent trans- lator of it, the name of the Rev. Richard F. Clarke, S.J., of the EngUsh Province, whose editions of Spirago's catechetical volumes had given him the advantage of special experience in kindred work, suggested itself to the pubhshers. Father Clarke actu- ally undertook the translation, and had fairly completed it when death overtook him. The manuscript was placed in my hands with a request to prepare it for publication. After much delay, due to a multiplicity of other professional duties, I found it pos- sible, with the cooperation of the Rev. Dr. Charles Bruehl, who kindly consented to undertake the principal work of revision, to complete the volume which is now placed at the disposal of our clergy. There is probably room for some criticism in parts wherein I have undertaken to alter the expressions of the author and of the original translator, with a view of accommodating the matter to the temperament of the English reader. In this I may have sinned at times both by excess and by deficiency; but these blemishes can, I trust, be eliminated in future editions of a work which, for the rest, contains so much of instructive material as to prove itself permanently useful to the theologian and pastor. In some cases I would not wish to be understood as sharing the author's views, nor should I have deemed an insistence upon the often-cited opinions of casuists quite so essential in a work of this kind as it seemed to the learned author. But in this I did not feel authorized to depart from his text, even if I had not fully appreciated the advantage of his ample references and quota- tions in matters of detail. His own experience as a professor of Moral Theology, and as confessor for many years, gives him cer- tain advantages entitled to recognition. With these restrictions borne in mind, it would be difficult to exaggerate the usefulness of a work such as this, which directs the priest in the sacramental ministry of Penance as indicated by the laws and practice of the Church. The aim of every pastor must in the first place be to rouse the PREFACE 7 consciences of the individual members of his flock to motives of pure and right Hving. The Gospel of Christ furnishes the model of such living, and the Church is the practical operator under whose direction and authority the principles of the Gospel are actively carried into society, from the lowest to the highest strata. The sacramental discipline of the Confessional is the directest and most powerful instrument by which the maxims and precepts of the Gospel are made operative and fruitful in the individual conscience. A prominent non-Catholic writer of our day has characterized the Catholic Church as the Empire of the Confessional. So she is, and her empire is the strongest, the most penetrating, permanent, and effective rule for the good conduct of the individual and the peace and prosperity of the community that can be conceived. On the proper operation, therefore, of the Sacrament of Pen- ance depends in the first place all that we can look for of satis- faction and peace upon earth. But the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is solely in the hands of the priest or con- fessor. If he knows what to do, if he is wisely diligent in doing what the discipline of the Confessional instructs him to do, he will rule his people with order and ease, he will gain their gratitude and their love, he will reap all the fruits of a happy ministry, and his name will be in benediction among men of good will within and without the fold. The Confessional is a tribunal. It demands a certain knowl- edge of the law, exercise of discretion and prudence in the appli- cation of the law, and the wisdom of kindly counsel to greater perfection. As the lawyer, the judge, the physician, learn their rules of diagnosis and prescription in the first instance from books and then from practice, so the future confessor, for three or four years a student of theology, deems it his first and most important duty to study Moral Theology, and this with the single and almost exclusive purpose of making use of it in the Confessional. Moral Theology gives him the principles of law and right, the rules to apply them to concrete cases, and certain precedents by way of illustration, in order to render him famihar with actual and practical conditions. But the young priest learns much more during the first few months and years of his actual ministry by sitting in the Confessional and 8 PREFACE dealing with the consciences of those who individually seek his direction. There is some danger that the practical aspect, with all the distracting circumstances of sin's work in the soul, may in time obscure the clear view of principles and make the confessor what the criminal judge is apt to become during long years of incum- bency, oversevere or overindulgent, as his temper dictates. He may thus lose that fine sense of discrimination, that balanced use of fatherly indulgence and needful correction, which the position of the representative of eternal justice and mercy demands. To obviate this result, which renders the Confessional a mere work of routine and absolution, instead of being, as it should be, a means of correction and reform, the priest, hke the judge, needs to read his books of law and to refurbish his knowledge of theory and practice and his sense of discernment. But the theological texts with which he was familiar under the Seminary disciphne, where nothing distracted him from the attentive use of them, are not now so readily at hand. Their Latin forms are a speech which, if not more strange and difficult than during his Seminary course, seems more distant and uninviting. The priest, even the young priest, would rather review his Moral Theology in the familiar language in which he is now to express his judgments to his penitents. This fact alone suggests the pertinent use of the book before us. There the confessor, the director of the conscience, finds all that he was taught in his Moral Theology. He finds much more ; for the author has made the subject a specialty of treatment which leads him to light up every phase of the confessor's task. He has himself studied all the great masters in the direction of souls from the Fathers of the Church down to the Scholastics of the thirteenth century; and more especially those that follow, who have entered into the theory and art of psychical anatomy — Guilelmus Paris, Cardinal Segusio, St. Thomas, St. Bona- venture, Gerson, St. Charles Borromeo, Toletus, De Ponte, St. Francis of Sales, Lugo, Lacroix, Concina, Cajetan, and Bergamo, St. Alphonsus, Renter, and finally those many doctors of the last century who have written upon the duties of the con- fessor in the light of modern necessities and special canon law. It is hardly necessary to explain to the priest who has passed PREFACE 9 over the ground of the sacramental discipline as found in his theological text-books, how the subject is here presented in the detail of analysis and application to concrete conditions. Pen- ance is a Virtue and it is a Sacrament. To understand the full value of the latter we must examine its constituent elements, the matter, form, conditions, the dispositions and acts of the penitent, sorrow for sin, purpose of amendment, actual accusa- tion of faults in the tribunal — requisites which are dealt with by Professor Schieler in the traditional manner, but with clear- ness and attention to detail. Of special importance are the suggestions in the third chapter, touching the integrity of the Confession: the number, circima- stances certain and doubtful, of the sins, and the reasons which excuse the penitent from making a complete confession; hke- wise the treatment of invalid confessions, of general confessions, their purpose, necessity, or danger as the case may be ; satisfac- tion, its acceptance or commutation. The main object of the treatise Ues, however, as might be sup- posed, in the exposition of the confessor's powers and jurisdic- tion, and of the reservation and abuse of faculties. These matters are in the first place discussed from the theoretical stand- point. Then follows the application, which takes up the second principal part of the work. Here we have the confessor in the act of administering the Sacrament. He is told how he is to diagnose the sinner's condition by the proposal of questions and by ascertaining his motives — how far and to what end this probing is lawful and wise. Next the qualities of the confessor, his duties and responsibilities, are set forth in so far as they must lead him to benefit his penitent both in and out of the tribunal of penance. The obhgation of absolute secrecy or the sigillum is the subject of an extended chapter. From the general viewpoint which the confessor must take of his penitent's condition and the safeguards by which he is to pro- tect the penitent both as accused and accuser, our author leads us into the various aspects of the judge's duties toward penitents in particular conditions. Thus the sinner who is in the constant occasion of relapse into his former sin, the sinner who finds him- self too weak to resist temptation, the penitent who aims at extraordinary sanctity, the scrupulous, the convert, form sepa- 10 PREFACE rate topics of detailed discussion. The last part of the volume deals with the subjects of confessions of children, of young men and young women, of those who are engaged to be married, of persons living in mixed marriage, of men, religious women, of priests, and of the sick and dying. Some of our readers may recall that we have protested against too implicit a reliance on an artificial code of weights and measures in the matter of sin ; and to them it may seem that in seconding the translation of such a work as this we go contrary to the prin- ciples advocated, because our author presents the same applica- tion of canon law and judicial decision which has been sanctioned by the great moralists and canonists of the schools. But let the reader remember that in the text-books of the Seminary, we have as a rule the principles and precepts presented in their skeleton form so as to leave the impression of fixed maxims, which cannot be altered, although they are in many cases only the coined con- victions of individual authors, to whose authority the student is taught to swear allegiance. In the present volume princi- ples and precepts are so discussed that they admit of an all-sided view, and as a result do not hinder that freedom of judgment which is so essential a requisite in a good judge and, therefore, in a confessor. For the rest we felt it, of course, to be our duty toward the author to preserve his train of thought and reasoning, and if anything is needed to make his exposition especially appli- cable to our missionary conditions of time and place, it will be easily supplied by any one who shall have read and studied the present work. H. J. Heuser. CONTENTS PART I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT PAGE 1. The Virtue of Penance 17 2. The Sacrament of Penance 20 3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance 22 4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin .29 5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General . 37 6. The Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular . 39 7. The Form of the Sacrament 50 8. Conditional Absolution 59 PART II THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT 9. Who can Keceive the Sacrament of Penance 70 CHAPTER I Contrition 10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition 71 11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition 76 12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Pro- curing it 81 13. Imperfect Contrition 88 14. The [Necessary Qualities of Contrition 98 15. The Relation of Contrition to the Sacrament . . . . .111 CHAPTER II The Purpose of Amendment 16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment . . . 121 17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment 126 18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin . . 138 11 12 CONTENTS CHAPTER III Confession Article I. Essence, Necessity, and Properties of Confession 19. Essence and iN'ecessity of Confession 137 20. Properties of Confession 138 Article II. The Integrity of the Confession 21. Necessity of the Integrity of Confession 153 22. Extent of the Integrity of Confession 157 23. The Number of Sins in Confession 163 24. The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins 166 25. The Confession of Doubtful Sins .180 26. Sins omitted through Forgetfuhiess or Other Causes not Blame- worthy 193 27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation .... 198 Article III. The Means to he employed in Order to make a Perfect Confession 28. The Examination of Conscience 215 29. Invalid Confessions 222 30. General Confession 228 31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession 238 32. Plan for making a General Confession ...... 245 CHAPTER IV Satisfaction 33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor 256 34.- The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent 271 35. The Commutation of the Penance 274 PART III THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Section I. TUe Powers of the Confessor 36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation 279 CHAPTER I Jurisdiction 37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction . . 284 38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or Approbation 288 CONTENTS 13 PACK 39. Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church 300 40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of Rehgious Orders 307 41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns . . 311 CHAPTER II Limitation of Jurisdiction or Reserved Cases 42. Reseryed Cases in General 316 43. The Papal Reserved Cases 326 44. Absolution of Reserved Sins 340 CHAPTER III Abuse of Power by the Minister of the Sacrament 45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin . . . 351 46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi .... 354 47. Sollicitatio Proprii Pcenitentis ad Turpia 364 Section II. The Office of the Confessor CHAPTER I The Essential Duties of the Confessor in the Exercise OF HIS Office; or, The Confessor considered in his Office of Judge 48. The Knowledge of the Sins 49. The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent 50. The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent 51. The Confessor's Duty in Disposing his Penitents . 52. The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to r Absolution . 379 . 382 . 398 . 402 efuse . 407 CHAPTER II The Accessory Duties of the Confessor Article I. The Preparation 53. The Virtues which the Confessor must Possess .... 416 54. The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor 424 55. The Prudence of the Confessor 434 14 CONTENTS Article II. Duties of the Confessor during Confession 56. The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent (Munus Doctoris) 438 57. The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the Confessor as Physician) 448 CHAPTER III The Duties of the Confessor after the Confession 58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confess 59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession 60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession 61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession 62. Violations of the Seal 460 466 471 473 476 Section III. The Duties of the Confessor toward Different Classes of Penitents CHAPTER I The Treatment of Penitents in Different Spiritual Conditions Article I. The Occasionarii 63. Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them .... 487 64. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Proxima Voluntaria 493 65. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Necessaria 496 66. Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin 501 Article II. Habitual and Relapsing Sinners 67. Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners 68. Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners 69. Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care 70. Penitents aiming at Perfection 71. Hypocritical Penitents . . . ' 72. Scrupulous Penitents .... 73. Converts 518 521 530 536 543 545 555 CHAPTER n The Treatment of Penitents in Different External Circumstances 74. The Confession of Children 75. The Confession of Young Unmarried People 561 575 CONTENTS lb PAGE 76. The Confessor as Adviser in the Choice of a State of Life . . 583 77. Betrothal and Marriage 592 78. The Confessor's Attitude toward Mixed Marriages . . . 600 79. How to deal with Penitents joined in "Civil" Marriage only . 607 80. The Confessor's Conduct toward Women 608 81. The Confessions of Men 614 82. The Confession of Nuns . . 618 83. The Confession of Priests 624 CHAPTER m Penitents in Extreme Danger 84. The Importance of the Priest's Ministry at the Bedside of the Sick and the Dying 630 85. The Confessions of the Sick 632 86. Absolution of the Dying 645 Topical Index 655 THEORY AND PEACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL Part I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 1. The Virtue of Penance. At all times penance has been the necessary means {necessi- tate medii ad salutem) of obtaining pardon for those who had committed mortal sin. ^^If we do not do penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord/' is the warning of the Old Testament (Ecclus. ii. 22). And when God sent His prophets, it was to arouse men to repentance by the announcement of His wrath, and threatening punishments. The forerunner of Our Lord solemnly exhorts the assembled crowds, ''Do penance; the king- dom of heaven is at hand." Our Lord Himself insists on the same point with awful determination, ''Unless you do penance you shall all Hkewise perish" (Luke xiii. 3). He proclaims as the task of His own public ministry and the great mission of His Church, "to call sinners to repentance" (Luke v. 32). Accord- ingly, the burden of the Apostles' preaching was, "Do penance" (Acts ii. 38), for "God hath also to the gentiles given repentance unto Hfe" (Acts xi. .18). Thus penance is indispensable to the sinner by divine ordi- nance, as the Council of Trent expressly teaches (Sess. xiv. c. 1). It is not less clearly dictated by natural law. "For reason prompts man to do penance for the sins which he has com- mitted; but divine command determines the manner according to which it is to be performed." ^ Taken in its widest sense, penance may be defined as a regret for some past action. Such a regret is not necessarily virtuous> 1 S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 84, art. 7 ad 7. 17 18 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT for a morally indifferent or even a good action may be to us a source of displeasure and grief. But even in its restricted mean- ing, denoting grief, on account of some bad action, penance does not yet include the idea of virtue. Grief is caused by the per- ception of anything we look upon as an evil. Now sin maybe regarded as an evil in more than one way. Then only does our penance rise to the height of a virtue, if we feel sorry for our sins, not by reason of some temporal disadvantage we have incurred, but for God's sake, whose holy law we have transgressed and whose majesty we have outraged. In other words, the virtue of penance requires that we detest sin as an evil of a higher, supernatural order. Penance is not a virtue of its own and specifically distinct from other virtues. St. Thomas considers it as belonging to the virtue of justice, because by it we perform an act of justice toward God, since we restore to Him the honor of which sin has deprived Him, and make reparation for our wrongdoings.^ Apparently, it springs from the virtue of religion, as an effect thereof; for to detest one's sin as an injustice done to God im- pHes an acknowledgment of His sovereign goodness and majesty. This submission to God is an act of the virtue of religion.^ Furthermore, Lehmkuhl '* is right in attaching the act of penance to virtues of different species. For sin, being in many ways an evil and opposed to hohness and duty, may be deplored from different reasons; and so our penance belongs to that virtue which supphes the motive of sorrow. Thus, a sinner may loathe his impurity from a love of purity, his intemperance from a love of temperance, his pride from a love of humility; he may also abhor sins because they are repugnant to more general virtues, such as the love of God and gratitude toward God.^ 2 S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 85, art. 3 ad 3. 3 Cf. MUller, Theol. Mor. Lib. HI. Tit. TI. § 106. 4 Theol. Mor. Tom. 11. § 1, De Poenit. «. 251; cf. Palmieri, Tract.de Pceiiit. (Rome, 1879), p. 18 et seq. ^ While theologians are united in admitting a virtus generalis pcenitentice THE VIBTUE OF PENANCE 19 The virtue of penance, thus being a complete destruction of all affection to sin, has an intimate bearing on the Sacrament of Penance. It is the disposition required on the part of the sinner, not only for the worthy, but also for the vahd reception of the Sacrament. It represents, so to speak, the matter of the Sacrament, so that without it the Sacrament is null and void. Consequently, it enters as a constituent part into the very essence of the Sacrament. The most important act of the virtue of penance is an act of the will and is called contrition. It is contrition that gives birth to penance, vivifies and animates it. Without contrition, there is no remission of sin ; for it alone leads to a sincere avowa/ of our guilt and a meritorious satisfaction. The second act of penance is the confession of sin: it is penance exercised by speech. Justice exacts that the guilty should acknowledge their wickedness, and also make amends for the sins committed by words. The third act of penance is sat- isfaction in expiation of our misdeeds. The bad deed is com- pensated by some good action, which we are not bound to do, but which we perform in order to supply for our past deficiencies. This is penance in deed. These three acts of penance are most intimately connected with the Sacrament, and this union imparts to them a special efficacy and strength; for the imperfect virtue, which of itself is unable to effect justification, by its elevation to sacra- mental dignity acquires the power of conferring sanctifying grace.^ having its own material and formal object, they fail to agree on the definition of the formal object. Cf. Suarez, Lugo, and more especially Palmieri, 1. c. ^ Cf . S. Th. III. Q. 85 et seq. de pcenitentia secundum quod est virtus : Suarez, De Sacramento Poenitentise Disp. per 2 Sectiones, de poenitentia in corn- muni ; Lugo, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, P. I. pp. 1-44 (Romse, 1879) ; MUller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Sect. 106 ; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Tom. II. Tract. V. De Sacr. Poenit. Sect. 1 ; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VL Tract. V. De Poenit. Pars I. 20 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 2. The Sacrament of Penance. The arguments for the existence of the Sacrament of Penance do not form part of our task; they come within the scope of dogmatic theology. We shall only point out some theological propositions on which our subsequent dissertations are based. 1. Jesus Christ gave to His apostles and their successors in the holy ministry the power of forgiving and retaining sins com- mitted after Baptism. 2. This power is judicial and is exercised in the form of a judicial process. On this evident deduction from the words of the institution is based the entire Catholic teaching concern- ing the Sacrament of Penance. 3. The exercise of this judicial power constitutes a Sacra- ment, the object of which is to reconcile the sinner to his God. 4. The outward sign of the Sacrament is the exercise of the judicial functions; this comprises, on the one hand, the acts of the penitent, — contrition, confession, and satisfaction; and on the other, the priestly absolution, being the sentence dehvered by the representative of God. 5. The grace conferred by the Sacrament is the remission of all sins, embracing the effacement of the guilt, the obliteration of the eternal punishment, and the condonation of, at least, a portion of the temporal punishment. This remission of sin is accompHshed by the infusion of sanctifying grace, which, more- over, constitutes a title to certain actual graces, helping the penitent to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, to overcome temptation, to avoid relapse, and to amend his Hfe. At the same time the infused virtues are restored and the merits of former good works lost by sin are regained. On zealous penitents, besides, special gifts are bestowed, such as peace of heart, cheerfulness of mind, and great spiritual con- solation. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 21 Though the Sacrament of Penance is administered after the fashion of a judicial trial, still its administration deviates in many points from the customs of forensic practice. The chief points of divergence are the following : — 1. The aim which the secular judge has in view is to convict the criminal, and b}^ the infliction of a penalty, proportioned to the nature and the greatness of the crime, to restore the order of justice violated by the offense; the acquittal of the innocent is only a secondary consideration. The sacramental judge, on the contrary, reestabhshes the relations between God and man, destroyed by sin, not so much by imposing a punishment, as by effecting a reconciliation. His chief preoccupation is the indi- vidual welfare of the penitent ; the verdict, therefore, is a sentence of absolution and release from guilt ; however, the sinner must perform a certain penance, to be determined by the confessor. 2. It follows from this that the final sentence in the tribunal of penance, by which the case is decided, is always one of acquittal. Any other sentence passed in the sacramental court is only inter- mediate, amounting to a temporary postponement of absolution. 3. In the ordinary session of justice, besides the judge and the accused, we find a prosecutor, witnesses, and pleaders. In the sacramental court there are only the judge and the sinner, who is his own prosecutor, pleading guilty. The proceedings are shrouded in perfect secrecy. The bench cites the criminal against his will, and holds him by force; at the confessional, the sinner presents himself of his own free will. The spiritual judge must credit the account of the penitent, be it in his favor or disfavor, since he alone can bear witness to the state of his conscience. Only when there is moral certainty of the opposite, may the priest distrust the statements of the sinner. On the contrary, the ordinary judge has the right to reject any plea advanced by the criminal.^ ' Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 600 s.; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 255 ; Miiller, 1. c. Sect. 107, in fine. 22 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance. The Council of Trent declared in its fourteenth session, with regard to this point: ''The Sacrament of Penance is as neces- sary to those who have incurred mortal sin after baptism, as baptism itself is to those who are not yet regenerated."^ It follows from this teaching of the Council that, since Baptism is indispensable to eternal salvation, penance is equally necessary. To use the exact language of theologians, it is necessary in re vel saltern in voto. Which means that those who can actually receive the Sacrament are bound to have recourse to it in order to be freed from their sins ; but that those for whom the recep- tion of this Sacrament is for any reason impossible, will be cleansed from their sins by the desire of receiving it. This desire is always included in perfect contrition.^ For when Our Lord granted to His apostles the power of for- giving or retaining sins, and thereby instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the remission of grievous sin, committed after Baptism, He evidently asserted it to be His will that the sinner should be subjected to the power of the keys by the reception of this Sacrament, the latter thus becoming a necessary means of obtaining pardon for grievous sin committed after baptismal regeneration. The power of the keys vested in the apostles and their successors would be a useless gift if the faithful, with- out submitting to that power, could be released from their sins and gain the heavenly kingdom. The more so, as the priest possesses also the power of retaining sins; a power unfavora- ble to the sinner; but which the sinner could elude if the Sac- rament of Penance had not been made a necessary means of forgiveness. Nor would the sinner undergo the inconveniences connected with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, if 8 Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2. 9 Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. n. 600 s.; Lehinkuhl, 1. c. n. 255; Miiller, 1. c. Sect. 107, in fine. NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 23 he were not persuaded of Christ's precept, imposing the Sacra- ment of Penance as a means of reconcihation. Venial sins, however, are forgiven without reference to the Sacrament of Penance, as we shall show in another place/^ Thus, by divine precept, all who have incurred mortal sin after Baptism are bound to receive this Sacrament. The obli- gation is absolute (per se) in danger of death ; for, in this case, the reception is necessary. Hence those are bound who are suffering of a dangerous disease ; a mother before her -first con- finement, or before any subsequent birth, if her travails are of an especially alarming nature; a criminal sentenced to death, before his execution ; and any one foreseeing the lack of another opportunity for his whole life of making a confession. There are other times in the course of our life when the obli- gation of confession becomes actual and pressing; the Church, acting according to the intentions of Christ, has specified these occasions more particularly. For the Sacrament was not insti- tuted merely to dispose man for his passage from this hfe, but also to heal his spiritual infirmities, to shield him against relapse into sin, and to strengthen him to lead a virtuous hfe. Conse- quently, we would frustrate the object of the Sacrament if we were to postpone its reception to the hour of death. Per accidens it is obligatory to receive this Sacrament : (1) for a person who desires or is bound to receive holy Communion, and who happens to be in a state of mortal sin; (2) when the Sacrament of Penance is the only means for overcoming a temp- tation or avoiding grievous sin; (3) when any one feels him- self incapable of making an act of perfect contrition, and yet is by kis duties required to be in a state of grace; for instance, if one has to administer a Sacrament, or simply because one realizes that it is wrong to remain in a state of enmity with God for any considerable period." 10 See Sect. 4, p. 29. 11 S. Alph. Lib. YI. nn. 662, 665; Gury-Ball. XL n. 466; Ballerini, Ant. 24 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT The divine precept of approaching the Sacrament of Penance does not urge immediately that a mortal sin has been committed, for it is an affirmative command, and affirmative precepts do not press of their own accord, but only at certain times and under given circumstances. Besides, the Church's precept of an annual confession for all the faithful, who have fallen into mor- tal sin, proves sufficiently that divine law does not enforce con- fession immediately after committing mortal sin. The precept of the Church concerning the Sacrament of Pen- ance binds only those who have sinned mortally. For the Church's intention is merely to define more clearly the extent of the divine command; so the ecclesiastical precept does not exceed the limits of the divine precept, and Christ commanded only that mortal sin should be confessed. Hence one who has committed no mortal sin is not subject to the law of the Church prescribing yearly confession. In practice, however, the ques- tion has no import; for which of the faithful, guilty only of venial sin, would omit to go to confession at least once a year, or would think of receiving holy Communion without previously having confessed ? ^^ He who has committed a mortal sin, but, forgetting all about it, confesses only venial sins, and some days later remembers again the mortal sin, is, according to a probable opinion, no longer subject to the precept of yearly confession; for, since S. J. Opus Theol. Mor. Vol. V. ; Tract. X. Sect. V. De Sacram. Poen. cp. III. n. 1025 ss. ; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 229. ^2 Such is the teaching of nearly all the moralists; cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 667; (jury, L u, 478; Scavini, De Sacram. Poenit. n. 35. St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. 6. a. 3) teaches that he who has only venial sins to confess, satisfies the precept of the Church if he presents himself to the priest and declares that his conscience is free from mortal sin ; this will be counted as a confession. This opinion of St. Thomas is, however, contradicted by a large number of eminent theologians, — St. Antoninus, Billuart, Laymann, Lugo, Suarez, etc., — who appeal to the Tridentine decree (Sess. 13. cp. 5), which says in respect to the Lateran decree that it is determ'malivum divini prcecepti. i NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 25 the confession was valid, the mortal sin omitted by sheer for- getf ulness is forgiven ; and there only remains the obHgation of submitting the forgotten sin to the power of the keys in the next confession/^ For the same reason alleged above, the law of the Church extends only to those who have reached the age of discernment, and whose minds are sufficiently developed to render them capa- ble of sin. It is impossible " to fix any definite limit of age in tliis matter. Much depends on the child's personal gifts, its training and education. In each individual case the moral maturity of the child must be gauged by its general accomplish- ments and its ways of acting. During the ordinary course of rehgious instruction, the pastor will find ample material on which to base a decision; in case of doubt, the testimony of the parents and the teachers may be taken into account. ^^ Seven years is usually assigned as the age at which children of average ability and proper training have arrived at the period of discre- tion w^hich enables them to understand the malice of mortal sin. Hence it becomes a duty to instruct the children for confes- sion when they have reached about the seventh or eighth year, or, according to circumstances, even earlier. But even children of an inferior age, if they seem to have sufficient understanding, should not be allowed to die without absolution, though it be pronounced only conditionally. Of course, the priest will help them to ehcit the necessary acts of contrition and purpose of amendment. This should be done though it be doubtful that the child has committed a sin or if it has forgotten the sin com- mitted. It is not a good practice, therefore, to defer the instruction of children on this Sacrament to their ninth year or later; since it 1^ Suarez and Laymann teach the opposite. Cf. Scavini, 1. c. n. 35, nota 1. 1* Cf Decretum Lateran. Concilii IV. cp. 21. ^^ See Sect. 74, Children's Confessions. 26 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT does an injustice to the more intelligent children. Moreover, in the case of those children who are sick, this lack of early prepa- ration is apt to deprive them of both the Sacrament of Penance and Extreme Unction, which is a serious matter, if they have been capable of committing mortal sin/^ The precept of the Church imposes annual confession, saltern semel in anno. Beyond this, time and season are not specified. Theologians interpret the law in general as follows : all who are conscious of mortal sin are bound to confess within the period between January 1 and December 31, or, what practically amounts to the same, within the time comprised between the Easter of one year and the Easter of the following year. For, whoever makes his confession with a view to his Easter Com- munion, certainly does confess within the limits of a civil year, though the earlier or later date of Easter may make the inter- val elapsing between the confessions more than a year. Since the precept of yearly confession refers only to mortal sins, the common teaching of theologians is that, whosoever has accused himself at Easter time of venial sin only, but falls into mortal sin before the year has expired, must go to confession again before the end of the year, in order to fulfill the ecclesi- astical precept. ^^ The faithful, however, adds Lehmkuhl, should be exhorted never to put off the reception of the Sacrament, or at least the eliciting of an act of perfect contrition, when they have had the misfortune of offending God grievously ; for a soul in the state of mortal sin is in a most deplorable and dangerous condition. Still we are not authorized to insist on this as being an obliga- tion imposed by the Church, since some distinguished theolo- gians maintain the contrary. ^^ 16 Lehmkuhl, I. Tract VL n. 1202j 3. 17 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 669 ; Gury, 1. c. n. 479 ; Lehmkuhl, L c. n. 1204. 18 S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 8, art. 5 ad 4, and St. Bonaventure, Compend. Theol. Lib. VI. cp, 25, Confess, necessitas, support this view saltern tacite. Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1204. NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 27 He who one year, whether by his own fault or not, fails to make his confession, but during the next confesses all his sins, satisfies thereby the obhgations with respect to both years, in the case, at least, when, during the current year, he has committed a mortal sin which he includes in his confession ; for he has ful- filled the precept which enjoins reconciliation with God. If, on the contrary, the penitent has committed only venial sins in the current year, and confessed them along with the mortal sins of the previous year, and later on falls into grievous sin, he is obUged to make another confession in order to comply with the law of the Church/^ He who has not confessed for a whole year, must, according to the more common and probable opinion, confess as soon as possible; because the Church has defined the period for fulfill- ing the precept, not for the purpose of hmiting the obligation to a determinate date, but to incite men to perform their duty in proper time {non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem) . Hence, a man would sin against the precept as often as he shirked an opportunity of making the neglected confession, thereby renewing the intention not to obey the law.^^ He who has sinned grievously, and foresees that in the course of the year he shall be prevented from going to confession, must avail himself of the presently occurring opportunity, for in these circumstances the duty of confessing is actually press- ing. The precept of the Church prescribes, moreover, that the faithful confess their sins sincerely (fideliter). By a bad confes- sion we cannot discharge our duty. This was distinctly con- firmed by Alexander VII, condemning a proposition to the contrary. (Prop. 14.) 1^ Cf. Scavini, De Sacram. Poenit. n. 36, who follows Suarez, Laymann, Lugo, Salmanticenses, etc. Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1202. '^^ Lacroix, De prsecepto Confess, n. 2003; S. Alph. 1. c. n. 668; Scavini, 1. c. n. 36, Q. 4; Guiy, 1. c. n. 478, nota 3 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1206. 28 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT A further provision of the Later an decree, to confess pro- prio sacerdoti, which formerly obhged the faithful to make their annual confession to their own parish priest, bishop, vicar- general, or the Pope, has long been abrogated by a recognized universal contrary practice. Confession may, therefore, be made to any priest duly authorized by the bishop. ^^ The excommunication for the violation of the Church's pre- cept of annual confession, as of Paschal Communion, is not a poena latce, but a poena ferendce sententice. The ardent wish of the Church is that her children should confess frequently during the year. This is apparent from the wording of the law. Frequent confession is of the greatest use- fulness to all without exception, to the sinner as well as the Just. It destroys the evil inclinations born by sin and averts its terrible consequences. 1. Although, absolutely considered, a single confession made worthily and with due preparation is able to arrest us in the downward career of vice, to extinguish the long-nourished flame of passion, to correct our evil inclinations and habits, to confirm us in grace, and to insure us against relapse ; yet this is not the ordinary course of things. When we are cleansed from our sins by the Sacrament, we have yet to face a long struggle with the remains of sin; for the wounds inflicted by sin, though closed by the grace of absolution, leave us in a weakened condition, and may easily reopen. To effect a perfect cure of the soul, and to purify its incHnations and habits, there exists no more 21 Cf. Bened. XIY. De Syn. dioec. 1. II. cp. 14, 1-5. Hence a parish priest, who would make his parishioners confess to him, is guilty of sin, since such indiscreet zeal, or unworthy jealousy, might give occasion to sacrilegious confessions. Compare what St. Thomas (1. c. art. 4 et 5) wrote even before it was allowed to confess indifferently to any priest having faculties ; that a priest would sin, if he were not ready to give leave to any individual to make his confession to another priest. It was distinctly understood before that time that one might confess to any priest who had been authoi'ized by the proprius sacerdos to hear the confession. Cf. Muller, 1. c. Sect. 118, n. 6-4 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1205. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 29 efficacious means than frequent confession. It leads us to greater watchfulness over ourselves, constitutes an act of hu- mility, forces us to renew our good resolutions; it equips us with many special graces, intended to assist us in our spiritual warfare, and to enable us to persevere in the paths of virtue in spite of the manifold difficulties which we encounter. 2. Frequent confession is also the most powerful means to counteract the disastrous consequences of sin. The most fatal of these are: bhndness of the soul, hardening of the heart and final impenitence. As often as we go to confession, the great salutary truths of our religion are recalled to our mind. We reflect on God and our last end, on Jesus Christ and His love and mercy, on the wickedness and the dreadful punishments of sin, on our august duties, and on God's holy law. Frequent confession is an antidote against the hardening of the heart, since it arouses in us a profound hatred of sin, love for God, fear of His wrath, and the desire of accomplishing His will. Finally, as at every confession we again banish sin from our hearts, frequent confession is the best preparation for a penitent life and a happy death. Also the just derives great benefits from frequent confession; he is more and more cleansed from the lesser faults, committed daily ; the grace and love of God are increased in his heart, and special helps to overcome his faihngs and weakness are granted to him. The oftener the just man approaches this holy Sacra- ment, the more fully_ does he partake of its pecuhar graces.^^ 4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin. By divine and ecclesiastical precept we are bound only to con- fess mortal sins; there is no obligation to confess venial sins; these may be forgiven without receiving the Sacrament of Penance. ^'^ Pauli Segneri, S. J., Instructio Poenitent. cp. XV ; Fructus percepti ex frequenti confessione. 80 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACBAMENT '^Venial sins, by which we are not shut out from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, though they be rightly and profitably declared in confession, as the practice of pious people demonstrates, may be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other methods." Such is the teaching of the Council of Trent.'' Before enumerating the methods by which venial sins can be remitted we wish to observe : — 1. The most necessary condition for the remission of any sin, and therefore also of venial sin, is contrition. So long as a man is attached to sin and does not detest it, God cannot forgive it, for He is infinitely holy and just. It is not, however, absolutely necessary to specify the sins and make a formal act of sorrow for them, otherwise David's prayer Ah occultis meis munda me (Ps. xviii. 13) would be useless and the remission of forgotten sins impossible. Virtual contrition is sufficient, i.e. the sinner must be actually contrite for all his sins, and from universal mo- tives which apply even to those sins of which he is unconscious or which he has forgotten. He must also have the intention of including in that contrition all the sins by which he has offended God. Although venial sin is more easily forgiven than mortal, yet this forgiveness is impossible without at least a virtual con- trition for it. For when a man falls into venial sin he turns inordinately to creatures, not, however, as in mortal sin, by entirely abandoning God, his last end, and unreservedly giving himself up to creatures. This attachment to creatures, however, makes it necessary that he should, if not formally and explicitly, at least virtually and implicitly, turn away from them and com- bat this guilty affection for creatures by a contrary act of the will. A work done to please God, or a mere act of love with- out abhorrence of sin, does not remit that sin. As venial sin may coexist with the general habit of the love of God, so it may coexist with a particular act of that love ; for a man can make 23 Sess. XTV. cp. 5. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 31 an act of perfect love or even an act of perfect contrition and still retain a leaning toward some particular venial sin.^* 2. Since the presence of venial sin is compatible with that of sanctifying grace, and since a man can be sorry for one venial sin without being necessarily sorry for another, it follows that one venial sin may be forgiven and others left unforgiven. 3. A penitent who is burdened with both mortal and venial sins may by perfect contrition or the Sacrament of Penance be freed from his mortal sins and yet be left with his venial sins still upon him because he is not sorry for these. 4. Hence, if a man is in the state of mortal sin, his venial sins cannot be remitted without the mortal sin being at the same time forgiven ; for God cannot forgive one who will not acknowledge and love Him as Lord and God; and, according to 24 Cf . S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Summa Theol. III. Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin a perfectior pceni- tentla, that is, that a man actually detest his m^ortal sins so far as he can ; sed non hoc requiritur ad remisdonem venialium peccaior'um ; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quae hahetur per hahltum caritatis, vel poenitentice virlutis, quia, sic cariias non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum. . . . Hence follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a virtualis displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum ajfectum in Dewn et res divinas, ut, quidquid sihi occurreret, quod eum ah hoc motu retardaret, dis- pliceret ei et doleret se commississe, etiamsi actu de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata ohlita post diligentem inquisitionem. III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, 1. c. n. 13. There is an apparent opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art. 2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective secundum exten- sionem ad venialia peccata, and an intensive ex conatu potentice. Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this learned theo- logian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will effect the remission of all venial sins quoad culpam if it extends virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a virtualis displicentia ; in other word^, contri- tion. 32 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT the doctrine of St. Thomas, just as mortal sin is forgiven by the influx of sanctifying grace, so the remission of venial sin is de- pendent on a movement of grace or love, which therefore must be actually present.^^ Venial sins are forgiven : — 1. By the Sacrament of Penance, and that directly and ex opere operato, when they are submitted in confession to the power of the keys with formal contrition and purpose of amend- ment. 2. ^'By many other means," ^^ such as : — (a) All the Sacraments; they remit sins ex opere operato, and especiall}^ those sins which are opposed to the particular end of the Sacrament. For the object of every Sacrament is the sanc- tification of souls, and hence the removal of all that hinders this sanctification. Now venial sins in particular, by hindering the conferring of richer graces, are an obstacle in the way of attaining sanctity. Cardinal Lugo, in treating this subject, illus- trates it by the attitude of two friends: ^^Even where, in the strict nature of things, we cannot expect that the influx of grace should cause the remission of sins, yet it is in accordance with good feeling that where fresh and closer ties of friendship have been formed, Httle offences should be condoned. If, then, the influx or increase of grace is a new bond of friendship between God and the just man, uniting him more intimately with God, an embrace of love, so to speak, and a kiss of peace, it is prob- able and reasonable to suppose that there is granted also a re- mission of the smaller sins which have been retracted." " It is always, however, necessary and suflficient to elicit at least a virtual or implicit contrition, contained in a pious and supernatural affection toward God, which is opposed to venial 25 Cf. III. Q. 87, art. 4 et 2. On the diverging views of Scotus and Durandus, compare Suarez, De Sacram. Poenit. Disp. II. Sect. 2, n. 2. 26 Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5. 27 Disp. IX. Sect. 3, n. 53. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 33 sins, and is consequently a virtual horror and retraction of the same.^** Not all the Sacraments, however, effect this forgiveness in the same manner. Next to the Sacrament of Penance, Baptism and Extreme Unction have a peculiar power, because they were instituted by Christ for the very purpose of forgiving sins. If an adult who had been purified of original sin and of his mortal sins by perfect love and contrition (the Baptism of desire), but, on account of his attachment to venial sins, was not yet freed of these, were to receive Baptism, all his venial sins for which he had at least virtual contrition would be forgiven through this Sacrament. For, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Baptism effects a new birth, and in consequence the remission of sins, with the exception, of course, of those venial sins which the newly baptized person has not yet renounced. ^^ Of Extreme Unction the Council of Trent, referring to James V. 15, teaches that it forgives the sins which defile the soul, and removes the remains of sin.^^ With respect to the Holy Eucharist the same Council ^^ de- clares that although the forgiveness of sin is certainly not the principal fruit of this Sacrament, yet, in accordance with our Lord's commands, we should receive it in order thereby to be freed from our daily trespasses and strengthened against mortal sin. Hence there is no doubt that the Holy Eucharist removes venial sins. But theologians do not agree how it produces this effect — whether, as in the case of the three preceding Sacra- ments, immediately, ex opere operato, or only mediately, ex opere operantis. The champions of both views appeal to St. 28 Cf. S. Th. ITT. Q. 87, art. 1 et 3. 29 Cf. Trid. Sess. V. Deer, de peccato orig. n. 5; Sess. XIV. de poen. cp. 3; S. Th. III. Q. 86. art. 2 ad 1. 30 Sess. XTV. de Extr. Unct. cp. 2, can. 2. 31 Sess. XIII. can. 5 et cp. 2. 34 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT Thomas, who on the one hand teaches that the Holy Eucharist acts after the manner of bodily food, repairing what in the heat of concupiscence we have lost by venial sin, and on the other hand declares the pecuhar grace (res sacramenti) of this Sacra- ment to be caritas, and that not only quantum ad habitum sed etiam quantum ad actum; in other words charity is ehcited in this Sacrament, and through its operation venial sins are forgiven.^^ Suarez interprets St. Thomas as teaching that the Holy Eu- charist effects the remission of venial sins ex opere operato, and this interpretation would seem to have the preference over that of theologians who, with St. Alphonsus, insisting on the words just quoted, hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist works ex opere operantis.^^ The three remaining Sacraments, of Confirmation, Orders, and Marriage, do not so directly imply forgiveness of venial sin ; still they pour into the soul of the recipient a new grace, and so they, too, must be considered as remitting venial sins when no obsta- cle is put in the way.^^ The range of this power varies accord- ing as the grace conferred in the Sacrament is more or less opposed to some particular sin or kind of sins. The most effi- cacious of the last-named Sacraments in ehminating venial sin is that of Confirmation, because its influence extends to the whole life of faith and grace, strengthening and bringing it to perfection.^^ Holy Orders give grace to the recipient, so that he may attain the holiness and perfection that befit his state, and in consequence they also purify from sin.^^ Finally, Mat- rimony remits venial sins because it confers the grace by which concupiscence is curbed and restrained, and by which the recipi- ents are enabled to fulfil their duties of mutual sanctification. 82 III. Q. 79, art. 4. 83 Suarez, Comment, ad III. Thomas, Q. 79, art. 4. Cf. Disputatio 63, Sect. 10, n. 1. 34 Cf. S. Thom. Q. 87, art. 2 et 3. 35 Cf. S. Thom. Q. 72, art. 7 ad 2. 36 Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 26, art. 1 et 3. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 35 (h) Venial sins are likewise removed by the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which of its own nature is a sacrifice of atonement, a sacrificium vere propitiatorium.^'' It works this forgiveness, as theologians teach, per modum impetrationis, therefore mediately, by obtaining for the sinner from God the grace of contrition or other virtues, excluding affection for sin. ^^ (c) The sacramentals also destroy venial sins. '^By the use of the sacramentals the faithful confess and awaken their faith, hope, reverence for God, a longing for interior holiness and sin- lessness, or a horror of sin, and sorrow for past offences. The symbols blessed or used by the Church confer a grace which produces or strengthens desires and acts of different virtues, which in turn destroy venial sin and atone for it." ^^ Hence a sacramental possesses power of remitting sin in proportion as its character and the blessing of the Church cause it to excite or strengthen acts of virtue in the faithful. The Church has a sacramental especially designed for the remission of venial sins, and makes use of it on those occasions when the faithful need greatest purity of heart. It consists of the two prayers : Mis- ereatur vestri, etc., and Indulgentiam, ahsolutionem, etc.^" To these we may add the use of holy water, which, in accordance with the intention and prayers of the Church when she blesses it, is designed to ward off the devil's influence from animate and inanimate creatures and to protect them from impurity, sickness, and harm.^^ The effect of the other sacramentals in procuring remission of venial sins is not so direct. The more they are of their own nature suited to awaken contrition, and the more directly the intention in the use of them is directed to . 37 xrid. Sess. XXTI. de Sacrif. Miss«, cp. 2. 38 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 311. ^^ TaiDpehorn, Die lassliche Siinde, p. 55. *^ Some theologians attribute to these two prayers an effect ex opere operato. Suarez, Disp. 12, Sect. 2, n. 6. 41 Cf. S. Thorn. III. Q. 87, art. 3. 36 PENANCE AS A VIBTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT the cleansing from sin, so much the more effectual are they in this respect/^ (d) Contrition by itself also procures the remission of venial sins, and more especially when it is perfect (contritio), since, then, it destroys mortal sin and is, therefore, still more efficacious in the case of venial. Perfect contrition removes all venial sins if it is universal, that is to say if it extends to all venial sins, or if a man is disposed never more to commit venial sin and would be sorry for all his past sins, if they were present to his mind. On the other hand, an act of perfect contrition does not remit all venial sins, if it extends only to this or that particular venial sin, or if a person is disposed to avoid only one or <)ther of his venial sins.^^ According to the teaching of the more numerous and distin- guished theologians, even imperfect contrition remits venial sins; this imperfect contrition {attritio) must spring from some supernatural motive referring to God — such for instance as the thought that venial sin is a violation of the obedience or rever- ence due to God.^^ By attritio the affection toward sin is en- tirely uprooted and the will is withdrawn from the sin, man turns again to God as his last end, and expiates his fault by his sorrow. ^^ {e) Moreover, the ^Move of God above all things" remits venial sins if it is actual and formally or virtuahy opposed to venial sin.^*^ (/) Lastly, venial sins are forgiven by good works done from 42 Cf . Mliller, 1. c. Sect. 110, II. n. 4. 43 Cf . S. Thoin. III. Q. 87, a. 2 ; 8. Bonaventure, In IV. Sent. Dist. 20, P. 1, a. 1, Q. 2 ad 3. 44 Cf . Lugo, De Sacram. Poenit. Disp. IX. Sect. 2, n. 29 et seq. ; Suarez, Disp. XT. Sect. 8 ; Ripalda, De Ente Supernatural!, Tom. II. Lib. IV. Disp. 97, Sect. 4 (Ed. nova, Parisiis, 1870). 45 For the arguments of those who oppose this teaching, see Suarez, Disp. XL Sect. 3, n. 5 ; Gury, I. n. 457 ; Scavini, L c. n. 11 ss. 46 Cf . Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 3, nn. 8-10. CONSTITUENT PARTS OF SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 37 a motive of penance {ex affectu poenitentice) , especially those to which Holy Scripture assigns the virtue of destroying venial sin. Such are: prayer ^^ (John xiv. 13 s.; xvi. 23), almsgiving and fasting, especially the works of mercy and mortification (Ecclus. in. 33; iv. 1-11; Tob. iv. 11; Dan. iv. 24; Matt. V. 7; John iii. 5-10; 1 Reg. vii. 5, etc.; 1 Esdras viii. 21, etc.). Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 147, art. 1 et S.'' 5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General. As in the other Sacraments a distinction is made between the matter and the for7n, so too in the Sacrament of Penance; but with a certain difference, which appears from the fact that the Council of Trent speaks of the matter of this Sacrament as a quasi-materia. The Catechismus Romanus ^^ states this more fully when it says : This Sacrament is distinguished from the other Sacraments especially in this, that the matter of the other Sacraments is a substance produced by nature or art, while in the Sacrament of Penance it is the acts of the penitent, especially the contrition, confession, and satisfaction ; yet it is not because these acts are not to be considered as truly matter of the Sac- rament that the Holy Council calls them quasi-materia (^'as it were the matter"), but because they are not materially or exter- nally applied, like water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation. These three acts of the penitent are styled by the Council of Trent the parts (partes) of the Sacrament of Penance ^^in so far ^■^ There are three prayers which have quite a special efficacy in this mat- ter : one has come to us from the Holy Ghost through David, the other from Our Lord, and the third from the Church ; they are the seven penitential psalms, the Our Father, and the Confiteor. Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3 ; I. I.I. Q. 74, art. 8 ad 6. 4^ On the remission of venial sins, defiling the faithful who die in grace see S. Thom. De Malo, Q. 7, a. 11 ; Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 4 ; Disp. 47, Sect. 1 ; Palraieri, Tract, de Poenitentia, p. 190 ss. ; Oswald, Eschatologie, p. 84 ss. ; Tappehorn, Die lassliche Sunde, Sect. 11, p. 61 ss. 49 Cat. Kom. P. II. Cap. V. Q. XII. 38 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT as they are required by God's ordinance in the penitent for the completeness of the Sacrament and for the entire and perfect remission of sin."^^ To these must be added the absolution of the priest, which constitutes the form. Hence we have to con- sider as parts of the Sacrament : (1) contrition, (2) confession, (3) satisfaction, and (4) absolution/^^ The three acts of the penitent have not all, however, the same importance. The satisfaction belongs to the Sacrament only in so far as its integrity and its complete efficacy are concerned; hence it is not an essential, but only an integral part of the Sac- rament. It is true that the power of imposing on the penitent a suitable satisfaction belongs essentially to the administration of this Sacrament; hence also the penitent is obhged to accept this penance and to declare himself willing to perform it. The actual performance of the penance, however, is not necessary in order that the Sacrament should produce its effect. ^^ The confession or self-accusation of the penitent in presence of the priest is the principal matter of this Sacrament, for this is necessary in se and per se, in order that the confessor may form a judgment and administer the Sacrament. Contrition is a necessary constituent of the Sacrament but merely in se not per se ipsum, and only as contained in the ac- cusation, which is an outward manifestation of the contrition ; 50 Cat. Rom. 1. c. 51 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2, 3 et 4, Ccan. 4; S. Thorn. III. Q. 86, art. 6; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. 1. d. 2 ss. 52 Suarez, Disp. 20, Sect. 3, n. 8, and Disp. 58, Sect. 1, n. 3 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Cap. III. Sect. 1, n. 258 ; Aertnys, 1. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174. Without satis- faction the Sacrament is there in its essence, but it is not quite perfect, as a man without legs is, indeed, a man essentially, but not a complete and per- fect one. For this Sacrament was instituted for the complete removal of sin, both guilt and punishment; thus it produces not only remission of the guilt and of the eternal punishment (in which may be included a portion of the temporal punishment), in consequence of the absolution, but also remission of the temporal punishment by the performance of tlie penance imposed; hence the satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament which produces these effects. Cf . Lugo, De Poen. Disp. 12, n. 40. BEMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 39 for contrition is not per se subject to the senses, but must be outwardly shown in some way in order to become manifest.^^ ''The contrite accusation, therefore, reahzes all the conditions of the matter in the Sacraments." ^* Theologians draw a further distinction in this Sacrament be- tween the proximate and the remote matter {materia proxima et remota) . Proxima materia consists of the acts which the peni- tent has to perform, and remota materia of the sins committed after Baptism which the penitent has repented of and confessed and for which he must do satisfaction.^^ 6. Of the Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular. The remote matter of this Sacrament are, as we have already seen, the sins committed after Baptism. Those committed be- fore Baptism are forgiven entirely in Baptism, wherefore they 53 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 258. 5* Aertnys, 1. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174. ^5 Theologians do not agree as to whether the acts of the penitent are in truth matter belonging to the inner constitution of the Sacrament — in the same way, for instance, as the washing with water is an intimate element of Baptism — or whether they belong to the Sacrament only in a wider sense; in other words, whether the acts of the penitent are materia ex qua or only materia circa quam of the Sacrament. The Scotists place the whole essence of the Sacrament in the absolution, and teach that the acts of the penitent are only materia circa quam and conditio sine qua non, in such a manner, however, that without these the absolution cannot be sacramental ; hence they have no hesitation in considering these acts essential. The Thomists, and by far the greater number of theologians, consider the acts of the penitent as materia ex qua, because they do in fact belong essentially to the constitution of the external act which produces the interior grace. This doctrine unquestionably carries the day, "unless," as Lehmkuhl says, " one chooses to call the acts of the penitent materia ex qua, not as having their origin in the penitent, but as matter presented judicially to the con- fessor, a question about which I do not wish to argue, for that acts of the X")enitent — sorrow and accusation — are necessary, and should be elicited, is beyond all doubt." Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 256. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. 1, n. 14. 40 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACBAMENT are not, properly speaking, subject to the Sacrament of Pen- ance. Again, a man is not under the Church's jurisdiction till he is baptized, and this Sacrament of Penance is administered by virtue of the jurisdiction which the Church exercises over her members. The sins which are confessed are not, however, materia ex qua, as is water in the Sacrament of Baptism, by means of which the Sacrament is conferred, but materia circa quavi, with regard to which the penitent performs the necessary acts and receives absolution. As, for example, in a lawsuit the matter proposed for decision and the sentence are called the matter of the case, so here the sins which form the object of the sacramental process instituted for the remission of sins are regarded as the remote matter of penance.^*^ This remote mat- ter is divided into : — 1. Necessary and free matter (necessaria et libera), i.e. neces- sary as a consequence of the divine command, by which definite sins (a definite materia remota) must be submitted to the sacra- mental tribunal and the power of the keys, so that the penitent who wilfully neglects this course cannot receive the Sacrament validly. By free matter we understand those sins which the penitent voluntarily confesses whilst not bound to do so by divine law. 2. Certain and doubtful (certa et dubia), i.e. matter which in the judgment of the confessor is a certain and vahd object of absolution; or matter regarcUng which absolution cannot be pronounced without misgiving. 3. Finally, sufficient and insufficient (sufficiens et insufjiciens) , i.e. such matter as suffices for the administering of the Sacra- ment and the granting of absolution, whether the matter be necessary or free, and such over which sacramental absolution cannot be pronounced. Necessary matter comprises all grievous sins committed after Baptism and not at any former time submitted directly to the 66 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. Cap. III. n. 171. EEMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 41 power of the keys; of all and each of them the penitent is obhged to accuse himself. Sins are remitted directly when they have been remitted per se quite independently of other sins. This is the case when they have been explicitly confessed to a priest having the required jurisdiction. Sins are forgiven indirectly when they are re- mitted in conjunction with other sins, and not per se. This hap- pens when a penitent omits a sin through invincible ignorance or forge tfulness or inability; or if a confessor without proper jurisdiction, for serious reasons, gives absolution. In both cases such sins are remitted in conjunction with the other sins which have been exphcitly confessed and over which the priest had jurisdiction. This must be so, for a penitent cannot at the same time experience God's mercy by the remission of the sins which he has confessed and also be an object of God's wrath with re- spect to his other sins ; moreover, the inpouring grace, through the remission of the sins that have been confessed, is not com- patible with the presence of mortal sin remaining in the soul. It is in consequence of Christ's institution that all the sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly forgiven, and also the sins only indirectly forgiven, must of necessity be revealed to the priest; for in appointing the priest to be His representa- tive, Christ made him the judge before whom all mortal sins must be brought, that, in virtue of the power of the keys, he might pass sentence of loosing or binding." Over sins which have not yet been directly remitted the confessor has pronounced no judgment, for they were unknown to him; hence, in accord- ance with Christ's command, even sins indirectly forgiven must be submitted by confession to the power of the keys in order that they may obtain direct forgiveness.^^ 5^ Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5. 58 Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 595 ss. ; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tr. VI. Disp. 1, q. 4, cp. 5. Hence Alexander VI[ condemned the proposition (Prop. II. daranata) that sins omitted in confession, whether 42 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT The following classes of sins are sufficient and free matter for confession : — (a) The venial sins committed after Baptism. These are mat- ter sufficient because Christ gave His priests power to forgive all sins, therefore also venial sin; and the Council of Trent teaches that it is good and wholesome to confess venial sins. Since, however, the recommendation of the Council imposes no obhgation to confess them, as they may be remitted by other means, they are free matter. (b) Sins already directly forgiven are also free matter. Since they have already been remitted by sacramental absolution they may be said to exist no longer. Nevertheless, though they have been forgiven, one may renew his sorrow for them, and on that account the absolution may be given again vahdly, even if no other sins be presented. This is proved by the gen- eral practice of the faithful and the unanimous teaching of theologians, who declare that contrite confession of a past sin is always materia proxima of the Sacrament; a sin which has received forgiveness remains always a sin of the past and so can be made the object of sorrow and of sacramental accusation.^^ Moreover the highest authority in the Church favors this view; for Benedict XI teaches ^^ : '^Though it be not necessary, yet we consider it very wholesome to repeat the confession of special sins on account of the humiliation which they cause." Although, in these words, the Holy Father speaks of humiliation only as the advantage to be drawn from the confession of pre- viously forgiven sin, it is quite evident that he does not intend to exclude the great benefits which the absolution pronounced they have been forgotten, or not confessed on account of danger of death, or for any other reason, need not be mentioned again in confession. 59 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 427, dub. 2; Gury (Ed. Rom.), n. 418; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 17; Miiller, L c. Sect. Ill; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 172. Q. I. ^ Extravag. com. 1. 5. tit. 7 (de privileg.), c. I. Const. " Inter cunctas." BEMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 43 over these sins must bring, for the confessions of which the Pope speaks are made only in order to obtain absolution.^^ Thus, besides this salutary humihation, the confession of for- given sins and the absolution again pronounced over them cause an increase of sanctifying grace and a remission of tem- poral punishment, augment the hatred for sin, and dispose the penitent, who has only human shortcomings or venial sins of less moment to disclose, better toward a sincere contrition. How in this case the true notion of ^^ absolution," which is in fact identical with the influx of sanctifying grace, is preserved, re- mains for the dogmatic theologian to settle; for our purpose it is enough to indicate briefly Lugo's explanation. ^^As," says the learned Cardinal, ^^ after making a vow I can bind myself afresh to its observance by renewing the vow in a manner which binds me independently of the former promise, so God may again waive His right of punishing sin, by a renewal of the com- pact with man to pardon past sins, and this repeated renuncia- tion of the divine right is as efficacious as the first, and is made by a new infusion of sanctifying grace." ®^ Since venial sins and mortal sins already directly remitted are free matter, it is not necessary to accuse one's self of them with such accuracy and perfection regarding number and species as in the case of necessary matter, even if there be nothing else to confess. In this case we cannot urge the two reasons for which the accusation of mortal sins not yet confessed must include the details of species and number, for neither has God ordered it, nor is it required in order that the judicial power may be prop- erly exercised with regard to them. Hence it suffices to accuse one's self in such a way as to enable the priest to form some sort of judgment. That this is possible if the sin is confessed at least generically (generice) is seen from other cases. For in- stance, a man who knows that on one occasion he sinned gravely 61 cf . Ballerini, 1. c. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 263. 62 Lugo, De Poenit. d. 13, n. 73. 44: PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT against the sixth commandment but has forgotten the exact specific nature of the sin, or that he has sinned gravely but has quite forgotten what the sin was, is obhged, as all theologians teach, to confess that he has sinned gravely against purity, or, in the latter instance, that he had committed a mortal sin. Many extend this obligation to a sin w^hich is only doubtfully mortal, of which the penitent cannot any longer remember the species, and which moreover is the only sin weighing upon his conscience. ^^ r We have viewed our subject with respect to the vahdity of the Sacrament. Let us see how in practice a general accusa- tion may be made, and how far such general accusations are valid and permissible matter for absolution. 1. A penitent may accuse himself thus: ^^I have sinned and I accuse myself of the sins of my whole life," and if the con- fessor has no other knowledge of these sins, such an accusation is general in the widest sense ; to this class belongs also an accu- sation conveyed by an expression of sorrow without any explicit avowal of sin. 2. A more particular but still general accusation is: ''I accuse myself of all the mortal sins which I have committed." 3. Yet more precise is the accusation: ^'I accuse myself of all the lies I have told, or of all the sins I have committed against purity, or justice, or this or that particular virtue," thus pointing out the virtue or the command against which he has sinned, but without giving the ultimate specific character (m- fima species) of the sin. 4. Finally, the penitent may declare the ultimate species (infima species) of the sin without determining the precise act and without the specific circumstances and their number ; e.g. I accuse myself of all profanations of the name of God, of all sinful looks dangerous to purity, of all deception in my dealings with my neighbor, etc. 63 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 263. REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 45 When there is question in the confession of materia libera : — • 1. The last two methods of general accusation are sufficient for the valid and licit administration of the Sacrament, whether the whole confession consist of such a general accusation or whether this general accusation be added to a confession of venial sins to make sure of contrition. The second method of accusation might perhaps be allowed ; but if any one wished to make the whole confession by this second method of general accusation, embracing in this manner sins already confessed without some sort of a special mention of venial sins lately committed, the confessor might well object and could not easily give absolution unless in case of some pressing necessity. If, however, sins not yet explicitly confessed are declared, and a general accusation is added of the second kind for the sake of security, this may be considered as sufficient both quoad valo- rem and quoad liceitatem. For the accusation, ^'I have sinned mortally," is not quite vague, as it expresses a certain degree of sinfulness which may very well be (and at times is all that can be obtained) the object of a judicial sentence. 2. An entirely vague accusation, although there be necessary matter, may be accepted as being sufficient in cases of extreme necessity — when a detailed accusation is impossible and abso- lution must be given. For instance : — (a) At the time of death, when the dying man can no longer speak or is unconscious, and has already shown signs of a desire for absolution ; for, according to the Roman Ritual, such a man is to be absolved {ahsolvendus est), and this official book of the Church suggests nothing about making the absolution condi- tional. (h) In other cases of impending death, when the desire for absolution is expressed by any sort of sign; e.g. in a shipwreck where there is not time to make a full accusation. (c) If a penitent is too ignorant or too weak-headed^ even with the help of the confessor's questions, to render an accurate 46 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT account, at least absolution may at times be given to such a penitent if he has not had it for a long period. ^^ 3. When it is a question of venial sins only (on the supposition that these either alone or in conjunction with other doubtful matter have been confessed), the confessor may not give absolu- tion for an accusation which is quite vague, for such an accusa- tion offers no entirely certain matter for absolution, and from what is allowed in danger of death we may not conclude that the same will suffice for the vaHdity of absolution in cases where there is no urgency. A confession, for instance, delivered by a messenger is permissible only in the case of imminent death where no other means can be devised; this is clear from the propositions condemned by Clement VIII and Paul V. In any other case, the unanimous voice of theologians declares such a confession invahd. Hence if valid matter can be pre- sented, it must be done if absolution is to be given. This is clear, too, on the merits of the case itself. One may always presume that the desire which a dying man expresses for absolution is at least a hesitating, if not definite, acknowledg- ment bf having committed mortal sin by the fact that he con- siders absolution necessary and desirable; but if a man, though able, accuses himself of no definite sins to his confessor, it is tantamount to a declaration that he has committed only venial sins. Now the confession of mortal sin in general contains something definite; whereas an accusation of Venial sin in gen- eral is altogether vague; hence the causa judicialis in this case is quite unknown, and no sentence can be passed where the charge is unknown and undetermined. Finally, it is quite foreign to the practice of the Church to make a confession by the formula, ^^I have no mortal sins; I am sorry for my venial sins, and I ask absolution." He who evades, therefore, a fuller accusation of his venial sins, when he could make one, is unworthy of absolution, which is intended to be 64 Renter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. Cap. III. Art. IV. n. 117. REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 47 given by the Church only to those who make a definite accusa- tion.^^ Though, adds Laymann/*^ no one is bound by any law to confess venial sins, yet whoever wishes to receive sacramental absolution must accuse himself at least of some venial sin, in specie.^'' Suarez says, and rightly, that the validity of such an accusation may be defended speculatively, but that practically it is to be condemned on account of the uncertainty of the matter. ''I declare, then," he continues, ^Hhat, though we are not strictly bound to confess the species of the venial sins, yet, supposing that we wish absolution, we are bound to offer certain and definite matter. But in case of necessity or where it is impossible to make a more definite accusation (as might happen in the case of a man who is dying) such matter would doubtlessly be suf- ficient." '' ''Since, then," concludes Lehmkuhl, ''outside the cases of necessity or impossibility a vague confession of only venial sins does not supply definite matter, it is not sufficient to add it to the particular confession in order to have a more secure ground for a valid absolution than by the accusation of the smaller sins committed since the last confession, unless the confessor from previous knowledge of the penitent can decide whether suffi- ciently definite matter is presented to him in this vague general assertion." ^^ In consequence the following rules are recommended in practice : — ^^ At accusare se de venialibus in genere dlcendo v. g. Accuso me de multis venialibus, nihil aliud exprimendo, prohabilius non videtur licere extra casum necessitatis ; turn quia est contra praxim Ecclesice, turn quia hoc Sacramentum est institutum per modum accusationis et Jiidicii, quod per se loquendo fieri debet circa materiam saltern in specie certam et determinafam. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VT. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II. Cf. Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10; Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. C. III. Art. 4, n. 117. 66 De Sacr. Poenit. c. 5, n. 14. 67 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II. 68 Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10. 69 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 266. 48 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 1. If, in order to secure unquestionably definite matter from the past life of the penitent, some sin or other is confessed in addition to those committed since the last confession, it ought to be done by mentioning the virtue or the commandment which was violated. 2. Some really grave sin ought to be mentioned. 3. It should not be mentioned out of mere routine, but with real sorrow of heart. 4. Since of late a number of writers defend the mere vague accusation on this free matter as valid and permissible ^^ even outside cases of necessity, the confessor when unable to get more definite matter may acquiesce and grant absolution. 5. If one desires to derive real spiritual profit from the con- fession of venial sins, too great minuteness as well as too great vagueness must be avoided; some particular venial sin which causes more uneasiness than the rest might be made a subject of more especial sorrow and more careful accusation, otherwise in many cases the sorrow as well as the accusation and purpose of amendment are likely to be too vague, if not completely absent. It has been pointed out previously that gross igno- rance on the part of the penitent is a reason for taking a very general accusation as valid for absolution. In practice the confessor should attend to the following rules : — - In th3 case of a penitent who accuses himself of no sin in particular, let the priest inquire whether this be due to the fact that the penitent has really not committed any mortal sin, or to invincible ignorance, or to a rooted habit of sin which has produced in the penitent a darkening of the intellect and a reck- lessness with regard to his salvation. If the penitent accuses himself of no sin in particular because he is really quite uncon- scious of grave trespass, the confessor might suggest to him a ■^0 Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Moral. II. n. 421. REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 49 few lesser sins such as are usually committed by people in the same station of life, and ask if, since the last confession or in his past Hfe, he has ever given way to such sins — if, for instance, he has offended his neighbor, or been violent, angry, disobedient, careless in prayer, etc. If the penitent answers in the affirma- tive to one or other of these questions, the confessor should excite him to repentance and purpose of amendment, so far as he sees it necessary, and then absolve him. If, however, the penitent answers all questions with a No, and cannot be induced to acknowledge any sin of his past Hfe, further questioning should be avoided, and the penitent urged to make an act of sorrow for all the sins of his whole life, especially those com- mitted against his neighbor, or against obedience, etc. If the penitent accede to this, as often happens, in spite of his former declaration that he is not conscious of any sin even in his past life, the priest should arouse him to sorrow and a firm resolution, and absolve him conditionally if the penitent has not received absolution for a long time. With such penitents there will be reason to suspect that their disposition comes from want of knowledge of the most necessary truths of salvation. If the priest discover this to be the case — ■ as he may by a few judicious questions — • he may not absolve him till after instruction in these necessary truths. Ordinarily it will be well to instruct him at once before leaving the confes- sional, for fear that he should neglect approaching the Sacra- ments — a consequence much to be apprehended — or take no pains to get instructed. If, however, the priest finds out that the cause of the ignorance is a rooted habit of sin, or the insensibihty following on certain sins which have so fatal an effect in this matter — as, for instance, impurity or drunkenness — he must exercise great patience, putting before the penitent earnestly the awful consequences of his sinful Hfe, instruct him, and in every possible way prepare him with true apostolic zeal to receive worthily the sacrament, either immediately or later, if the 50 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT absolution be deferred, and to fulfill his resolutions of making an earnest amendment. "^^ 7. The Form of the Sacrament. The form of the Sacrament, ^^in which its power principally lies," ^^ consists of the words which the priest utters over the penitent : Ego te ahsolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen. To these words the custom of the Church has added others which have become fixed in the ritual and are prescribed, though ^Hhey do not belong to the essence of the form and are not necessary for the conferring of the Sac- rament." ^^ There is no doubt that the words Ego te ahsolvo, or te ahsolvo simply (since the pronoun Ego is contained in the verb ahsolvo), belong to the essence of the form. These words are de essentia formce, because, as St. Thomas says,^^ they signify the virtus clavium et totum Sacramenti effectum. According to most theologians the words a peccatis tuis do not belong to the essence and the vahdity of the Sacrament; for this view we may quote St. Thomas and the authority of the Roman catechism, which says: ^'The form is: Ego te ah- solvo.^'' The words a peccatis tuis are sufficiently indicated by the accusation of the penitent and the act of the priest who gives absolution. Other theologians, however, maintain that these words are essential, arguing that since Christ in institut- ing the Sacrament used the words, ^^ Whose sins you shall for- give," the remission of sins ought to be expressly mentioned. Though the first view is the more probable, the words ought not to be omitted in practice, since in the conferring of the Sacra- ments the safer opinion should be followed. ^^ '1 On this matter see the eminently practical hints of Renter in his Neoconfessarius, 1. c. n. 117. Cf. Lehnikuhl, 1. c. nn. 266, 267. 72 Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 3. 78 Trident. 1. c. ^4 ni. Q. 84, a. 3. 75 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, Dub. 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 32. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT 51 If the words ahsolvo a peccatis tuis were used, omitting the word te, the form w^ould still be probably vahd, since te is suffi- ciently imphed in the word tuis ; in practice, however, this view ought not to be taken, but the safer opinion followed. "^^ The absolution would certainly be invahd if the priest said only ahsolvo, because the object of the absolution is not indicated and the sense is indefinite.''^ The words In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen, are certainly not of the essence of the form, since Christ in insti- tuting the Sacrament made no reference to the Blessed Trinity ; they are, however, most appropriately added to express that the priest absolves from sin by the authority and power of God.^« In cases of necessity absolution may be given by the same priest to many persons at the same time, while he says. Ego vos ahsolvo a peccatis vestris; thus, for instance, soldiers may be absolved at the beginning of a battle. As many Sacraments are conferred as there are persons absolved, if they give any token of sorrow and in some way confess their sinfulness, '''' The Rituale Romanum prescribes how a priest should give absolution, and, as it is the official book of the Church, he is bound to follow its directions. Any unauthorized change would be a sin because it is a breach of the commands of the Church; indeed the confessor would sin grievously if he wished to introduce any change into the form of absolution. ^^ When the priest is about to give absolution," is the direction of the Ritual, ''after imposing a penance on the penitent and the latter having accepted it, let him say : Misereatur tui omnipo- 76 S. Thorn. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. ■^" The S. C. de Propag. Fid., being asked if a baptism is valid in which te is omitted from the form, replied (July 5, 1841) : Nan valere baptisma, ideoque iterandum. The same holds for the Sacrament of Penance. 78 S. Thorn. III. Q. 81, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. c. 1. '9 Lugo, 1. c. Dist. 13,- Sect. 7 ; Lacroix, 1. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 645, etc. 52 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT tens Deus et dimissis peccatis tuis perducat te ad vitam ceternam. Amen. Then he raises his right hand over the penitent and says : Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem peccatorum tuorum trihuat tihi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen. " Dominus noster Jesus Christus te ahsolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ah omni vinculo excommunicationis {suspen- sionis) et inter dicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris *i* et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. "li the penitent is not a cleric, the word suspensionis is omitted." Then follows the prayer: " Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita heatoe Marice Virginis et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratice et prcemium vitce ceterncB. Amen.^' If there are many penitents to be heard and in urgent con- fessions, the Misereatur and Indulgentiam may be omitted and simply the Dominus noster, etc., said. The prayer Passio Do- mini, etc., may also be left out.^'' It is recommended, how- ever, not to omit this last prayer, because by virtue of it (so teaches St. Thomas) the good works of the penitent acquire the character of sacramental satisfaction, and a share in the merits of Christ as well as those of our blessed Lady and of the saints.®^ "In cases of pressing necessity, in danger of death, the priest 80 Cf. Deer. S. R. C. Feb. 27, 1847. 81 Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Poenitentiae, L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 268 : etiam in frequentloribus confessionibus expedit nan omittere. Though Tappehorn in his Anleitung zur Verwaltung des heiligen Buss- Sacramentes, third edition, p. 67, suggests that when, in accordance with the permission of the Roman Ritual, the prayer is omitted, it may be said after the last confe-sion over all those who have confessed, as at the first absolution (m confessionibus frequentioribus^ the prayers Misereatur and Indulgentiam (the plural vestri, vestris, etc., being used) may be said over all who are present, we must observe that the Roman Ritual mentions nothing about this practice. Holzmann recommends that the Passio Domini nostri, etc., should be said as the penitent leaves the box. THE FOBM OF THE SACRAMENT 53 may simply say: Ego te ahsolvo ah omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine Patris *h et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen J' Such is the form of absolution according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual. The confessor is at liberty to make use of the above abbreviations under the circumstances mentioned. It would be very wrong to attempt to put in all the prayers, if there were danger of a man dying without receiving absolution; in this case the priest must use the shorter form given by the Ritual. «' The priest will be more eager to carry out the directions of the Church if he reflects on the meaning of the prayers which pre- cede and follow the absolution ; the former constitute an admi- rable preparation for that great act of mercy, the latter a most appropriate crowning of the same; all secure a special help for the penitent. Even the blessing which, according to some rituals, the priest is enjoined to give with the words : Dominus sit in corde tuo et in labiis tuis ut digne et competenter (or rite) con- fitearis peccata tua. In nomine Patris *b et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen, is important. The accusation of so many sins is a heavy burden to the penitent; false shame and the devil will unite to deter him from a sincere accusation; and so the priest prays that the Lord with His grace may so act on the heart of the penitent that with sincerity and contrition he accuses himself of what burdens his conscience. In the Miser eatur the priest prays that God may grant in His mercy remission of the sins which the penitent confesses, and give him eternal life (anticipando by sanctifying grace, and perfectly in the next world). The Indidgentiam contains the same petition for '^ grace, absolution, and remission," of sins confessed and of all others; ^2 It is not (le necessitate to raise the hand at the hidulgentiam, to make the sign of the cross at the in nomine Patris, etc., or to uncover the head in giving the absolution ; and distinguished authors maintain that it is not sinful to omit these ceremonies ; it is advisable, however, in this matter to conform to custom. Scavini, Theol. Moral. Universa, Tom. IV. n. 76. 54 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT it is not meant as a mere repetition, as a sort of compliance with Our Lord's counsel of insisting on the first petition; but in the repetition of the synonyms the priest is no doubt intended to plead for God's mercy and power that the penitent may have complete forgiveness of sin. This perfect forgiveness includes also the remission of the temporal penalties, since these, as the reliquice peccatorum, are so intimately connected with the sin itself that in early Christian times they were briefly included under the category of peccata, and the Church, in the so-called general absolution given on the occasion of a plenary indulgence of temporal punishment, still uses the formula indulgentiam plenariam et remissionem omnium peccatorum tihi concedo. Then the priest goes on to reconcile the penitent to the Church by the removal of all censures which close the door to the Sac- raments and other means of grace. This absolution from cen- sure should always precede that of the sins as a measure of precaution even when no sins involving censure have been con- fessed. The Church insists on this, and many moralists teach that the confessor by omitting this absolutio a censuris would, commit a venial sin by his disobedience to the command of the Church. Even in cases of the most pressing urgency the priest should use the form : Ego te ahsolvo ah omnibus censuris et pec- catis in nomine Patris, etc.^^ St. Alphonsus does not regard this omission as a sin if the priest uses the formula of absolution with the intention of absolving from censure as well as sin, and he argues from the words of the Council of Trent, which says only that this clause is added laudabiliter.^"^ If, however, a penitent has incurred a censure and the priest first absolves from the sin and afterwards from the censure, such inversion of the order would be matter of grievous sin when the censure is excommunication debarring from the reception of the Sacra- ments; not, however, in the case of suspension or interdict. S3 Rt. Rom. De Sacram. Poenit. 84 Sess. XIV. cp. 3. Cf . S. Alph. n. 430, Dub. 4. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT 55 This inversion would also be a grievous sin even if the priest intended to absolve from both sins and censures, although in this case the words absolvo te a peccatis tuis can be understood of the absolution from censures on account of the intimate con- nection between the two/^ Such an absolution, therefore, would be valid though given in defiance of the Church's pre- scription, for the censure does not affect the validity but only the lawfulness of the absolution. ^^ The penitent must be present and the absolution pronounced over him by the confessor if it is to be valid. This is abun- dantly clear from the divine institution of the Sacrament, from the practice of the Church, and from a decree of the Head of the Church. Hence the absolution cannot be given in writing nor by signs. According to the teaching of the Councils of Florence and Trent the form of this Sacrament, as of all the others (except that of matrimony, where a mere sign of consent is sufficient), is in the words which the priest must pronounce and articulate over the penitent. The Sacraments owe their institution to Christ ; for, though matrimony existed as a divine institution before His coming, it was sanctified by Him and raised to the dignity of a means of grace in His Church. The essential rites of the Sacraments were defined by .Christ, and we learn them from Scripture or tradition. We know from a uniform tradition that the form of all the Sacraments except matrimony 85 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. cp. IV. art. 1 ; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. Disp. II. Q. IV cp. I ; Stotz, 1. c. L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1, n. 215; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. I. cp. III. § 3, n. 270. 8^ The word Delude which connects the absolution from censures with that from sins appears, from the latest edition of the Roman Ritual as revised and approved by the S. R. C, to belong to the form (cf. Edit. I. post typicam Ratisbou, 1888, specialiter a S. R. C. recognita) ; formerly the word was printed in red and regarded as a rubric (cf. Edit. Romse ex typogr. Prop. 1876). As to %\\q forma deprecatoria which, according to Frank (Bussdisciplin), was in use till the twelfth century, see Frank, B. 5, K, 4 ; Morinus, De Pcenitent. ; Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, Bd. 5, Teil 1, K. 6, § 3 ; S. Thorn. III. Q. 84, a. 3 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 269, nota 2. 56 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT consists essentially in words articulated by the lips; as for the Sacrament of Penance, the evidence is clear as well from the actual use prescribed in all penitentials and from the teaching of the Fathers, as from the decree of Eugenius IV to the Arme- nians. It is not, however, necessary that the words of absolution should be heard by the penitent or others; in fact it is recom- mended to say them in a low voice, so that, in case absolution is for some reason withheld from a penitent, others may not know of it. The fact that the absolution should be pronounced in words requires as its complement that the penitent should be present, for the words Ego te absolvo are not such as we would address to a person when absent, but thus we speak to one who is nigh. The form must certainly be apphed to the matter actually present ; moreover, according to the Council of Trent the sinner should present himself before the tribunal as the accused. This is quite clear, too, from the constant tradition of the Church, in which all penitentials contain a form which is pronounced over one who is present, and either explicitly require the imme- diate presence of the penitent before the confessor or evidently suppose it; nor do we find in the whole of antiquity any clear instance of a sacramental absolution pronounced over an absent person; A confession, therefore, made to a priest by writing or by messenger is invalid if the absolution is given to the penitent in his absence. Moreover, the absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent penitent even though the confession has been made by him in person to the priest. Further, too, the absolution is illicit and invalid which is given to a present peni- tent who has not confessed in person to the priest — if, for instance, the confession has been by letter; exception is made for the case where the penitent presents himself to the priest and for some good reason accuses himself only in general of sins THE FOIUI OF THE SACRAMENT 57 about which he has informed the confessor by letter, if the latter at the time of the confession retains a knowledge of the sins in particular. ^^ The prcesentia moralis of the penitent is sufficient for absolu- tion. This condition is satisfied if the priest and the penitent are sufficiently near to hear one another when they speak in an ordinary tone of voice, though cases may occur where the voice must be exerted a little more than is usual. ^® In general greater proximity is required for valid absolution than is demanded for hearing a preacher or for satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass.'' St. Alphonsus declares with respect to this subject that Tam- ^■^ With regard to this matter Clement VIIT in Const, data d. 20 Jun. 1602 condemned the following proposition: It is permitted to confess one's sins to an absent confessor by means of a letter or a messenger, and to receive absolution from the same confessor though still absent. Moreover, he forbade under pain of excommunication any one to teach this doctrine or to make use of it as a probable opinion. The condemnation of this proposition by the Pope involves evidently an absolute command, and the conclusion is fairly drawn that the confession made to an absentee, as well as the absolution given to an absentee, are both illicit and invalid ; otherwise one might in a case of extreme necessity allow the practice. The Clemen- tine decree is to be taken not only collectively, that is, as legislating for the case where both confession and absolution are conveyed by absentees, but also disjimctivebj, that is, as legislating for the case where confession has been made to an absentee, the absolution being given when the penitent presents himself, and vice versa. This was decreed by Paul V, July 14, 1605. More information may be found in Palmieri, Tract, de Poenit. pp. 141-143 (Rom. 1879). Cf. Renter, Neoconfessar. P. 1. n. 31 ; Muller, 1. c. L. III. T. II. § 132; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. 32 s. Absolu- tion from censure, apart from the absolution from sin, may be conveyed by writing and the presence of the penitent is not required ; similarly censures may be inflicted on one who is absent. Without grave necessity, however, the absolution from censures ought not to be given in the absence of the penitent. S. Alph. L. VII. n. 117. 88 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 429. 89 Though all theologians agree in requiring the moral presence of the penitent for valid absolution, they vary in assigning the limits of that pres- ence. Many theologians suppose that a penitent stationed at twenty paces from the priest may be regarded as morally present ; this distance is thought by St. Alphonsus to be too great. 58 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT burini is justified in rejecting the view of Leander, who holds that the moral presence is secured if the priest sees the penitent or is sensibly aware of his presence.^^ A man may be seen at a distance at which it would be impossible to hold speech with him in the usual manner or even by raising the voice. If in case of necessity absolution must be given at a distance, it should be given sub conditione. Hence to secure the validity of the absolution it is required (1) that the confessor and the penitent should not be in rooms which are in no way connected; and if (2) they are in the same room, they should not be too far apart, certainly not more thp.n twenty paces; if the distance is notably less, there need be no misgiving about the validity of the absolution; finally (3) the required proximity is secured if the priest knows that the penitent is present. (a) If the penitent has already left the confessional but is still close by the confessor, he may and ought to be absolved, even, according to Lugo, Tamburini, and others, if he be so merged in the crowd that he cannot be seen; the confessor must, however, be certain that he is not or cannot be far off; for the penitent is still morally present and has the desire of receiving absolution. The penitent ought, however, to be recalled if this can be done without causing disturbance or remark. (6) If, through fear of infection or for other reasons, the priest cannot enter a sick-room, he may validly absolve the penitent from the window or the door.^^ (c) If at a distance a priest sees some one falling from a height or into the water, or if he knows that some one is buried 90 S. Alph. 1. c. VI. n. 429. 91 The priest is, however, strongly advised not to be too nervous in exer- cising his office for a penitent struck down by an infectious disease ; confi- dence in God joined to a little prudent foresight and courage will be more useful to him than a cowardly nervousness. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 59 under the ruins of a building, etc., he should give absolution conditionally.*^^ Absolution must, under ordinary circumstances, be given absolutely ; for weighty reasons it may and ought to be given conditionally (conditione) . 8. Conditional Absolution. It is the unanimous teaching of ah theologians that in certain cases, for weighty reasons, the Sacraments may be administered ^2 Cf . Reuter, J^eoconfess. 1. c. n. 31 ; Scavini, Theologia Moralis uni- versa, Tom IV. n. 77; Miiller, 1. c. § 132; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tom. V. cp. IV. 11. 215, Q. 6. In accordance with tliis teaching we must solve the question raised whether absolution given by telephone is valid. (Aloys. kSabetti, S.J., in CoUegio SS. Cordis ad Woodstock, Th. Mor, Prof., Compend. Tlieol. Moral. Gary ... ad brevioreni formam redactum, etc. Benziger, 1884; Alphoiis. Eschbach e Cong. S. Spiritus et Jnim. Cord. M. Rectoris Sem. Gall. Romse, La Confession par telephone ; Melata, Manuale Theol. Moralis, De Poenit. cp. 11. art. I.) It is certain that the use of the telephone for giving absolution is extra casum necessitatis a grave sin because it intro- duces into the administration of the Sacraments a practice which is novel and liable to misuse. The case is limited to the question whether in urgent need the use of such a method can be tolerated — if, for instance, a member of a secret society, seized with a dangerous illness and anxious to be reconciled with the Church, but debarred by his associates from the sight of a priest, could make use of the telephone placed in his room to call up a friendly priest and make his confession to him and receive absolution through the telephone. Eschbach, in his work mentioned above, teaches that such an absolution is quite invalid. Sabetti acknowledges that the solution of the question involves many difficulties, and that it ought to be submitted to the decision of the Holy See; he appears, however, to incline to an affirmative answer. He says : Though it is true that moral presence and a connection between matter and form are necessary in every Sacrament, yet this exigency varies. Since Penance has been instituted on the lines of an earthly tribunal, in which judge and accused must be so far present to one another as to be able to speak together, the absolution in the given case cannot be said for certain to be invalid, since one might always argue that the priest and the penitent could speak together. Against this, it may be objected that the illustration of an earthly tribunal is not quite applicable, since here the presence of the accused is not necessary, for he may be con- demned in contumaciam. To the question whether in casu extremce necessita- tis dari possit ahsolutio per teleplionium ? the Poenitentiaria replied, July 1, 1884: Nihil esse respondendum. — Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale (Romse, 1887), p. 119. 60 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT conditionally, and, what is more, must be so administered. With regard to Baptism and Extreme Unction this is pre- scribed by the Roman Ritual, with regard to Confirmation by Benedict XIV, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, where a doubt exists as to the validity of the consecration, by the Rubrics of the Mass, and with regard to Orders by the S. Congregatio Concilii.^^ The question now under consideration is whether the Sacra- ment of Penance given conditionally is valid. Many theologians were of opinion that a conditional absolution was opposed to the judicial character of this Sacrament. They argued that the conditional form was not judicial, and in partic- ular would not admit a condition loith regard to law (conditio juris), on which the confessor was bound to pronounce judg- ment (e.g. if thou art prepared, disposed, etc.), whereas they permitted a condition with regard to the fact {conditio facti) {e.g. if thou art alive). This distinction is, however, irrelcA^ant; for even though the question of the penitent's disposition be left undecided, still the priest judges (1) of the sins which have been confessed, and (2) gives his sentence on the apparent worthiness and preparation of the penitent and the penance to be imposed ; and (3) judges on the advisability of conferring conditional ab- solution or not, according to the effect it will have on the peni- tent. In any case, the argument from the difference which a conditional sentence would create between a human court and the sacramental tribunal proves nothing, since the two courts differ in many points.^* It is to be particularly noted that the sentence of an earthly court is always carried out ; while the effect of the sentence which the priest pronounces in the divine tribunal always depends on conditions known only to God, so that the priest's sentence is always conditional even when it is pronounced in an absolute form. A conditional sentence is in 93 Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom. III. n. 479 (Ed. Par. 18G7). 94 Cf. Gury, II. 1. c. n. 432, 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. 27. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 61 no way inconsistent with the nature of a judicial judgment either in general or in the Sacrament of Penance. Lehmkuhl enlarges on this point :^^ ^^It is not repugnant in a civil tribunal for a judge to give sentence with a condition like the following, for instance : ^ If payment be not made by a cer- tain date/ or to grant a hearing to a plaintiff ^provided that such or such document be found among his papers/ which docu- ment, of course, he will order to be searched for by trustworthy men. Indeed, every sentence of a human tribunal, whether in civil or in criminal causes, is seldom pronounced without the implicit condition ' if the evidence of the witnesses be true ' ; for unless it rested upon this supposition and condition, the sen- tence would be unjust and consequently null, more especially if pronounced by any but the supreme authority." Thus the sacramental sentence always presupposes that the penitent is telHng the truth and has real sorrow; under such circumstances the confessor may be mistaking even when he thinks he is certain, all the more so as the sacramental sentence is pronounced always ministerially, and, in order to be efficacious, must be in accordance with the sentence of God. This, how- ever, is no impediment to the absolution being for the most part pronounced absolutely both as to form and intention. This the confessor must observe as long as he has no sohd ground for thinking that his judgm3nt is not in accordance with God's; for a condition which rests only on a possibility or on a groundless suspicion is practically not worth considering and ought not to be acted upon; in reality it is quite sufficiently implied in the nature of the case. If, however, for some good reason it is to be feared that the judgment of the confessor is different from that of God, while the pressing necessity of the case, or the good of the penitent requires that absolution be given even though doubtful, rever- es Lehmkahl, P. 11, L. I. Tr. V. Sect. I. n. 272. 62 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT ence for the Sacrament demands that the condition be added explicitly in word, or at least in the mind, so that it amounts to a protest on the part of the priest that where the condition is in default he withdraws his intention of pronouncing the sacred words of absolution in the person of Christ. The opponents of conditional absolution urge in favor of their view the proposition that in doubt about the vahdity of the Sac- raments the safer opinion must be followed. With regard to the vahdity of conditional absolution there is no doubt, since the views of its opponents have no probabihty either intrinsic or extrinsic. Moreover, it is not true that the safer opinion with regard to the vahcUty of the Sacraments is always to be followed ; for, since the Sacraments were instituted for man's benefit, cases occur in which the Sacraments must be exposed to the danger of nuhity, in order to help one who is in extreme spiritual neces- sity. An instance in point would be the case of a dying man whose dispositions are doubtful. To let him die without abso- lution would surely expose him to the certain danger of dam- nation. Supposing he were in good dispositions, whatever misgivings I might have on the subject, should I not be re- sponsible for his damnation ? I might have opened the gates of heaven to him and I have not done it ! Am I then to absolve him without any condition ? But supposing he is not disposed ; even if the Sacrament were not nullified, I should be guilty of having exposed it to the clanger of invalidit3^ From such a di- lemma the only escape is the use of conditional absolution ; by it I can help the dying man if he is in good chspositions, and I insure the Sacrament against nullity when I have the intention of not conferring it unless the man be disposed. ^^ Hence theologians teach that absolution given suh conditione is vahd if the condition be fulfilled; the condition, however, must be de prcesenti or de praierito; absolution given under a 96 Cf. (iurv, II. n. 434. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 63 Qonditio de futuro would be invalid, for in a conditio de futuro the minister of the Sacrament has no intention of conferring the Sacrament kic et nunc; his intention would rather be to confer the Sacrament when the condition will have been fulfilled; by that time, however, the matter is no longer present which for the vahdity of the Sacrament must be joined to the form. On the other hand, the Sacrament may be vahdly given under a condition de prcesenti or de prceterito, because the intention is absolute if the condition is fulfilled; if not fulfiUed, the inten- tion of administering the Sacrament is wanting, so that the Sacrament is not exposed to irreverence. In this case the con- ditional intention passes into an unconditional one, i.e. becomes absolute. But the conditional intention is efficacious for vahd- ity only if the condition is completed or satisfied at the moment when the matter and form of the Sacrament are brcmght to- gether. The absolution would also be vahd if it were given with the condition: "if you are alive, if you are baptized, if you are present, if you really intend to make restitution" ; while an ab- solution would be invalid if given under conditions such as, "if 3^ou are predestined, if it be in the mind of God that you will make restitution this year," since such knowledge is withheld from men. Finally, an absolution given with the condition, ^^if you are going to improve," would also be invalid. ^^ It is also allowed to give absolution suh conditione when there is just reason for so doing; and in case of necessity the priest is bound under mortal sin to give conditional absolution. ^^ The view of some theologians is to be condemned who hold that one may impart conditional absolution for any insignificant reason, or without urgent need, or in any doubt of the requisite dispositions even in a penitent burdened with mortal sin. This is a doctrine which bears too openly the stamp of laxity, and it Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 25; Stotz, 1. c. L. TT. Q. IIT. art. T. § -i. Cf. Declar. S. Inquis. 17 Juui 1715, 17 Dec. lbC)8, 20 Jul. 1859. 64 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT is pernicious to souls. What a number of sacrileges would fol- low from such a practice ! The confessor would be no longer a faithful and prudent minister of the Sacrament, he would be casting pearls before swine, and by his too easy compUance in giving absolution he would imperil the souls of his peni- tents.^' On the other hand, we cannot admit the teaching of those theologians ^^^ who hold that absolution suh conditione is per- mitted only in extreme necessity or in great danger. A sufficient reason for imparting absolution under condition would be in the case where unconditional absolution would ex- pose the Sacrament to danger of nullity on account of a reason- able doubt of the existence of some one or other of the requisites for the validity of the Sacrament, and where at the same time by putting off the absolution the penitent would be exposed to danger of real spiritual harm. From what has been said we gather that in the following cases absolution may be given suh conditione : — 1. If the priest doubt whether he has absolved a penitent who has confessed a mortal sin. 2. In doubt whether the penitent in question is morally present. 3. In doubt whether the penitent is alive or already dead. 4. If the priest doubt (duhio jacti) whether he has jurisdic- tion, and the confession must be made ; in such a case the con- fessor must tell the penitent that he has given absolution only suh conditione, so that if proof be forthcoming later on that juris- diction was wanting, the penitent will know that he has not been absolved and must accuse himself again of the mortal sins men- tioned in that confession. If the doubt turn on the question of law (duhium juris), i.e. on a point where theologians do not 99 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 432, etc. ^°° Colletus, " acerrimus probabilismi impugnator. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 65 agree whether absolution can be given in such a case, the absolu- tion may be pronounced without any condition/^^ 5. In doubt whether the matter be sufficient : this may hap- pen (a) when an adult is baptized sub conditione and is to be absolved at the same time; and (h) when a penitent declares only some imperfections, and there is doubt whether they are really venial sins, and when the same penitent can offer no cer- tain sins of his past life. To such a penitent absolution may, according to a probable view, be given at intervals, so that he may not be deprived for long of the benefits of the Sacrament of Penance ; absolution in such cases ought not to be given more than once a month. For the same reason absolution can be given sub conditione when the penitent, unable to present cer- tain matter from his past Hfe, has only sins of less moment to confess and there is doubt as to the existence of sorrow for such sins.^^^ Moreover, if the penitent offer no certain matter, the confessor is not bound to inquire for it in order to give abso- lution, and after making vain inquiry he is not obliged to give absolution sub conditione, since the penitent in such case has no sure claim to it. If, however, any doubt exists as to the presence of necessary matter, or whether a sin confessed along with the imperfections be mortal or not, for which, however, the penitent is certainly contrite, then absolution under condition must be given. 6. In doubt whether the necessary dispositions with regard to mortal sin are present conditional absolution may sometimes, though not always, be given; it must be given when urgent rea- sons counsel such a step. For instance : — (a) To those who are in danger of death, from whatever cause. (6) When the penitent honestly thinks he is well disposed, and when the confessor fears that if absolution be refused or put i°i Aertnys, 1. c. art. II. n. 217 ; Concina, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, in severas sententias generatim deflectens. 102 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 273. 66 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT off, the penitent may fall into worse ways or be frightened away from the Sacraments, or that he will certainly receive some other Sacrament, as, for instance. Marriage or Confirmation, in an unworthy state. Finally, conditional absolution may be given to children and others of whom it is doubtful whether they possess sufficient use of reason or the necessary knowledge of the truths of faith. These may receive conditional absolution not only when in dan- ger of death, but also when they have to fulfill the law of the Church, and especially if they have confessed a sin which is doubtfully or probably mortal; they must be so absolved even if they are relapsing sinners, for while in doubtfully disposed penitents who have the full use of reason absolution must be de- layed, since hopes may be entertained that they will return bet- ter disposed later, in the case of children or feeble minded no such hope can be well entertained. Indeed, according to a probable view such penitents may receive conditional absolution at inter- vals of two or three months, when they confess only venial sins, that they may not go for any considerable time without the grace of the Sacrament. The confessor is, how^ever, obliged to instruct children and feeble-minded persons and to dispose them for absolution. ^°^ We answer some objections urged against the doctrine that in the cases mentioned absolution may be given condi- tionally. 1. This practice is full of danger and is the cause of many sins. The practice is full of danger, it is true, if absolution is given indiscriminately without necessity or some special reason; if, however, the rules given above are observed, it is no longer dangerous or harmful. 2. It is further objected that a penitent conditionally absolved 103 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 432 ; Lacroix, L. VT. p. 2, n. 1797; Mazzotta, Theol. Moralis, Tract. lY. Disp. IT. Q. TV. cp. II. ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. I. n. 27; Aertnys, 1. c, art. IT. n. 217 ; Lehnikiihl, 1. c. n. 273 ; Gnrv, 1. c. ir. n. 43.5. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 67 will approach the altar and make a sacrilegious communion, a risk not to be incurred hghtly. The confession of such a penitent is not sacrilegious, hence the communion is not; for, by supposition^ the penitent is in good faith. At the worst the communion would be without fruit or profit; nor can we say that the communion is quite useless, for its reception is an occasion for eliciting different acts of virtue. Indeed, according to the common teaching on this subject, the communicant who receives in mortal sin and with imperfect contrition, yet in good faith, is placed thereby in a state of grace. To make an act of imperfect contrition should not be a great difficulty, since holy communion usually arouses pious emotions of love and sorrow in those who approach in good faith. 3. It is likewise objected that a conditionally absolved peni- tent will never confess his sins again, and if he is not rightly disposed will die in his sins. It may be rephed that doubtfully absolved sins are remitted (a) by the reception of holy communion, as we have already shown ; (6) indirectly in the following confession along with the other sins which he confesses, even if he were never again to submit them to the keys. If it be urged here that the penitent might never come to confession again, we should reply that such a case is extremely rare and to be treated as quite improb- able. On the contrary, the penitent would be exposed to much graver risk of his salvation if, in a situation of such necessity as we postulate for the giving of conditional absolution, he were to be dismissed without it. 4. Another objection is drawn from the first of the proposi- tions condemned by Innocent XI, whence it appears that no one may presume to follow a probable opinion in dispensing the Sacraments. The conclusion drawn is that no one may give an absolution which is doubtfully valid. This practice is absolutely forbidden where the validity of the 68 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT Sacrament and the welfare of the individual are endangered by such administration of the Sacrament; if, however, necessity or soHd reasons demand such practice, it is allowed/*^^ Moreover, the proposition condemned by Innocent is concerned only with the essential portions of the Sacrament, the vaHdity of matter and form in so far as these depend on the minister of the Sacra- ment. In our case the matter is presented by the penitent and is outside the control of the minister. Otherwise, indeed, peni- tents miight often enough be dismissed without absolution, for frequently no certainty can be had as to their dispositions, but at most a greater or lesser probability. 5. Finally some would limit the use of conditional absolution to cases of the greatest rarity and of most pressing necessity — when, for instance, a dying man is quite unconscious or already in his agony ; for in any other case it is entirely his own fault if he be doubtfully disposed. This is the view of the anonymous author of the Letters against the distinguished work of Cardinal Gousset : Justification de la doctrine de Saint Liguori}^'" This objection is based on several false premises : — 1. It is untrue that one who is doubtfully disposed is certainly indisposed ; it is at least per se untrue, for it is a contradiction in terms. 2. It is untrue that the penitent is always responsible for not 10^ Compare S. Alph. De Sacram. in genere, n. 28, 29, 57, and De Consci- entia, n. 49; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. I. 'n. 27: "liaec est se7i- tentia certa, licere in necessitate administrare sacramenta sub conditione." 1^5 He says : " Necessity is but very seldom a ground for giving absolution to one who is doubtfully disposed ; for a dying man, with only an instant to spare, and in the possession of his faculties, has only himself to blame if he cannot produce an act of perfect contrition; it is an article of faith that God never refuses the means of salvation if they are asked with confidence, and for such a soul perfect contrition is a most necessary condition for sal- vation. If, therefore, he has only doubtful contrition, it is his own fault, and in such case he is not merely doubtfully, but certainly, unworthy, and cannot in consequence be absolved. There remain, then, only the cases in which the dying man cannot express his sentiments even by signs, and tlien the principle holds: sacramenta propter homines.'' CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 69 seeming certainly disposed; for he can be quite prepared with- out the confessor -knowing about it ; again, as long as he is not certainly unprepared, he may be actually in the proper disposi- tions. 3. Many considerations respecting the penitent's salvation may, as we have seen, urge the confessor to decide on giving rather than refusing absolution. At times the priest would be guilty of the gravest imprudence by putting off the absolution till extreme need should arise, when the penitent might be unable to avail himself of the Sacrament. ^'Do you w^ish to put off the reconciliation of the dying man to his God till the moment when he can no longer express his wishes? Will you, in order to make the absolution certain, wait till the penitent is at the last gasp, so that it is doubtful if he is capable of receiving the Sac- rament? ... I repeat, the Sacraments are made for men, not men for the Sacraments. By pursuing such a course you would act in opposition to Him who out of His mercy gave us the Sac- rament ; you would depart from the spirit of the Church which, like a tender mother, administers the Sacraments, when you maintain that we can only apply the principle of sacramenta propter homines in cases where the dying sinner cannot even by signs express what is going on in the recesses of his soul."^^^ 106 Gousset, Lettres a M. le Cure . . . Lettre 8. Cf . Gury, 1. c. II. Tract, de Sacram. Poenit. P. I. n. 436-439 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. I. nn. 27 et 26, where he signalizes these objections as inanes ohjectiones nonnul- lorum, etiam recentiorum in Gallia, qui antiqua prcejudicia janseniana incaute ebiherunt. Paet II THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT 9. Who can Receive the Sacrament of Penance. Every man who has fallen into formal sin after Baptism is capable of receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Whoever, therefore, has not yet been baptized, or, having been baptized, has committed no sin since Baptism, is incapable of sacramental absolution. All children who have not attained to the use of reason are unable to receive this Sacrament; to these we may add such adults as cannot make that use of their reason which is necessary for disposing them to receive this Sacrament. In order that a baptized person may make a valid and fruit- ful use of this Sacrament, he must elicit those acts which we have mentioned before ; he must be genuinely sorry for his sins, be ready to do penance, and submit his sins to the power of the keys vested in the Church. These acts form not only the essen- tial and necessary dispositions for receiving the Sacrament, but — and this is a peculiar feature of the Sacrament of Penance — they are also the materia proxiina. The following sections will be devoted to the consideration of these acts in their double aspect. 70 CHAPTER I CONTRITION 10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition. The most prominent position among the acts of the penitent belongs to contrition. According to the teaching of the Council of Trent contrition is a hearty sorrow and detestation for past sin together with a firm resolution to sin no more. ^ We must investigate more closely the essence of this contrition. Contrition is a hearty sorroiv; this sorrow is interior; hence the prophet speaks of a rending of the heart (scindite corda vestra! — Joel ii. 13), and so contrition is called contritio cordis, a grind- ing of the heart. A merely external sho^v of sorrow, the mere recital of an act of contrition, is therefore not a true sorrow. Moreover, since sorrow is a moral act and all moral acts proceed from the will, sorrow must have its roots in the will. Many very different things may cause us great grief; for in- stance, the death of a dear relation, the loss of earthly goods, the failure of our plans and undertakings, the suffering of wrongs and affronts, experience of ingratitude and unkindness, a thought- less word which one has uttered, a mere breach of etiquette that one has committed. Contrition, however, is grief of the soul for j)ast sin. The sins of others may cause us real and deep feelings of pain. What fervent Christian is unconcerned at the many sins which are daily committed and the many affronts offered to God ? We are pained by them, but we cannot be contrite for them. We can 1 Sess. XIV. cp. 4. 71 72 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE have contrition only for the sins which we have ourselves commit- ted — de peccato commisso, as the Council of Trent expresses it. This being the case, sorrow as understood in this connection is not to be confused with : — (a) Merely speculative sorrow {dolor intellectivus) , i.e., the mere knowledge of the hatefulness and horror of sin. Reason when not blinded can recognize and must recognize clearly the hatefulness and wickedness of sin ; yet in spite of this knowledge the will may cling to it and love it; indeed such cases are of frequent occurrence. (6) Or the feeling of guilt or the remorse of conscience {ter- rores conscientice) which Luther taught to be of the essence of true sorrow. The feeling of guilt may be present without the help of our will, and even against our will. Remorse of con- science may be roused in us without our wishing it, and it may happen that we cannot allay it even when we wish to do so. (c) Finally, the resolve to amend, the resipiscentia, and even the giving up of the sin is not of itself true sorrow ; a man may forsake his sin merely because he has indulged in it to excess, because it has no longer any attraction for him, or because he has become tired of it. True sorrow is not merely a pain and bitterness of heart; it is also a real hatred and horror of sin; but hatred and horror are acts of the will, for it is the will which hates and loves, shrinks from an object or embraces it. The will may shrink from sin at the same time that sensuality makes us crave for the sin; the will, however, must not give w^ay to the craving. Sorrow and detestation of sin are in themselves distinct, yet they are so bound up in man's nature, that, where there is detestation there is necessarily also sorrow, so that true and efficacious sorrow for sin, as sin, cannot exist without detestation of the same.^ 2 Compare on this subject the lengthy discussions of Suarez, De Poeni- tentia, Disp. 3, Sect. 2 ; Lugo, De Poeuitentia, Disp. 4, Sect. 1 ; Renter, EXTENT AND EFFICACY OF CONTRITION 73 As to the question whether contrition hes more in sorrow for sin or in detestation of it — in other words, in dishke, hatred, and aversion — theologians answer that contrition is founded principally on detestation for sin, and with reason, for : — (a) By this detestation ^the sinner retracts his evil will and turns towards God; this detestation is, moreover, the cause of sorrow. When, therefore, it is asserted that the sinner should above all have sorrow for his sins, and when by this is understood a sorrowful hatred of sin, this is correct, for in this case horror of sin is there with its complement. Moreover, we must not lose sight of St. Alphonsus' dictum^ that there is no reason to doubt that one sentiment includes the other; he who has a horror of his sins is sorry for them, and whoever is supernaturally sorry for them detests them. Since contrition is the most important element in the dispo- sition of the sinner, it is proper to give in detail the acts which belong to contrition, and to show how the sinner may attain to perfect contrition. First and foremost, a preliminary act of faith and hope of obtaining pardon by the merits of Christ should be made. How can he repent of his sins who does not believe that there is a God and that God is offended by sin, who does not believe that God is faithful to His promises and merciful to sinners, and who does not hope that God will pardon him? These acts of faith and hope, though they need not be made explicitly, are the founda- tions of contrition; on them are built up the remaining elements which go to form the perfect act. These are : — 1. The knowledge of the hatefulness of sin as an offense against God, and of the awful punishments which the sinner Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 243 ; and particularly the very lucid exposition of Palmieri, Tract, de Poenit. (Roma, 1879) cap. IV. De act. poenit. art. I. § 1, p. 214 sq. 3 L. c. L. VI. n. 435. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. de Contritione, n. 14. 74 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE incurs. This knowledge is necessary in order to acquire contri- tion, for the law of man's nature makes him love and strive for what his reason proposes to him under the appearance of good, and hate and avoid what it presents as evil. 2. An act of the will, which desires to avoid the evil now known as such; on this follows: — 3. The hatred of past sins which have caused that evil, and the desire of undoing the sin committed. This desire, in the abstract, is only a velleity and quite inefficacious, for that which is done cannot be undone; but it is of efficacy in so far as it means a wish to undo, if it were possible, the sin by which God has been offended and punishment incurred. 4. From this hatred there arises in the rational appetite or in the will a sorrow and real distress that the sins have been com- mitted ; hence also follows : — 5. In the sensitive appetite, by picturing to ourselves the horror and evil consequences of sin, a certain hatred and sorrow, which may become so keen as to produce sighs and tears. 6. The resolve and firm determination never more to sin and offend God, or, what comes to the same thing, a resolution to observe faithfully and perfectly God's commands. 7. Finally, there appears in the truly repentant sinner a willingness to render satisfaction to God for past sins, to chas- tise and punish himself, and to repair God'9 honor.* Contrition is either perfect or imperfect^ according as the 4 Stotz, Tribunal Poenitent. Lib. I. P. 11. Q. I. art II. 5 This is the distinction given by the Council of Trent in Sess. 14, cp. 4 : Perfect contrition is very aptly and simply called contrilio in its restricted meaning, while imperfect contrition is called attrilio. The figure is taken from solid bodies which, when pounded to dust, are confrita, but when broken into fragments are attriia. " The heart of man may be compared to wood for kindling. By contrition (contritio and attritio) the heart is rubbed; as the rubbing is increased, the heart, like wood, becomes drier and warmer, till there bursts forth a fiame; this flame is sanctifying grace; and just as fire consumes wood, so charity consumes the crushed heart {cor contrUuni) and burns out its sin." (Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den EXTENT AND EFFICACY OF CONTRITION 75 sorrow and hatred arise from a motive of perfect love or of some supernatural motive which is inferior to perfect love. Since we understand here by love (caritas) the amor benevolentice, by which we love God above all things for His own sake, i.e. on account of His infinite perfections, we may define perfect con- trition (contritio) as a sorrow and hatred for past sins together with a firm purpose never more to sin, because sin is an injury to God, w^ho is loved above all things for His own sake. Imperfect contrition (attritio) may be founded on many other supernatural motives ; these are usually, as the Council of Trent declares, the fear of hell or punishment and the hatefulness of sin.^ Thus imperfect contrition may be defined : sorrow and detestation of past sin with the determination never more to sin, because sin is an offense against God, who utterly abhors it on account of its hatefulness and avenges it with punishment. The thought of God, the supreme Lord of all, infinitely holy, to whom sin is detestable by its shamefulness, fills the sinner with confusion ; the thought of God, who punishes sin with infinite justice, fills him with fear of the punishments of sin, and, impelled by this fear, he repents of having offended God by his sin. Perfect and imperfect contrition coincide in this respect, that they are both a supernatural sorrow and hatred for sin regarded as an injury to God; they differ, however, specifically in this, that perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love of God, and imperfect contrition from a variety of other less noble motives ; they also differ in their efficacy.^ heilig. Sakramenten, II. Bd. Fiinft. Teil, Zweit. Abschnitt, Erst. Hauptst. § 7, S. 82.) ^ Lugo, De Poenit. Disput. Y. Sect. 9, n. 132 ; Palmieri, Tract, de Poenit. 1. c. th. 21, p. 223. ■^ Since perfect contrition arises from perfect love, it is of great impor- tance, after considering the infinite goodness and dignity of God, to make an act of love and then an act of sorrow. The synod assembled in 1725 under Benedict XIII offers a form of contrition which was composed for 76 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition. According to the unanimous teaching of theologians, which is based on the Council of Trent, perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love. The Council declares that contrition founded on caritas is perfect ; that, in consequence, its perfection depends on caritas; hence in order to acquire a complete grasp of the nature of perfect contrition we must investigate the nature of love, its degrees and kinds. The love of God, of which only there is question here, has for its object God alone, and the motive of this love is similarly always God Himself. There are many aspects under which God may be presented to us as an object of love, and these aspects determine the different degrees of love. First of all there are two kinds of this love: pure or disinterested love, amor hene- volentice (amicitice), and selfish or interested love {amor concupis- centioe). God can be loved because He is most worthy of love, because He is good, because He is the highest good. If we love God for His own sake because He is most lovable in Himself iprout est in se summum honum), we have the first kind of love, the pure love of God; if we love Him on our own account be- cause He is for us the highest good (prout nobis est summum the use of children : " My Lord and my God, who art infinitely good and holy, I love Thee above all things and repent with my whole heart of having offended Thee so often by my sins. I detest them above all other evils. I humbly beg Thy forgiveness, and 1 promise with the help of Thy grace never more to offend Thee." (Collect. Lacensis Cone, Tom. I. p. 458, Fribourg, 1870.) Another form is given by St. Alphonsus: "My God, Thou art infinitely good ; therefore I love Thee above all things ; and because 1 love Thee I am sorry for all the sins which I have committed against Thee, O infinite Goodness. My God, T will never more sin against Thee ; I will rather die than offend Thee again." Perfect contrition might be aroused also in the following manner : " O Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all love, I love Thee above all things, and therefore I am sorry for all my sins and detest them above all things, because by them I have offended Thee and incuri-ed Thy anger. I am firmly resolved never more to offend 'rhee." (Muller, Theol. Moral. 1. c. § 112.) ESSENTIAL FEAT U BE S OF PERFECT CONTIUTIOA 77 bonum), we have the second kind of love. The pure love of God is called perfect love, the other imperfect. If now w^e con- sider more closely the imperfect love of God, we find two de- grees. God is here the object of love in as much as He is good to man, i.e. on the one hand God confers His benefits on man on earth and His everlasting possession in heaven completes the happiness of man hereafter, and on the other hand the loss of God means to man on earth unhappiness and suffering and in the next life the eternal punishment of hell. If a man disregards totally the idea of God as a person to be loved and keeps in view only his own selfish interests, he evidently loves only himself, thinking merely of his own present and future well-being, his own joys and sufferings, his own reward and pun- ishment. Such a love, which hardly deserves the name, is downright selfishness and is rightly called a mercenary love {amor mercenarius) . This love corresponds to the fear which is called purely servile, timor serviliter servilis, that fear which hates only the punishment and not the sin, which cherishes the inclination to sin, so that a man would sin if he did not fear punishment. Both love and fear of this kind belong to the lowest degree and destroy all supernatural merit and reward. But there is an imperfect love of God in which man's heart really turns to God simply because God is good to him, it is true, yet so that he loves Him efficaciously and really and regards the loss of God as the loss of all good and the greatest of misfor- tunes. Since in such a love of God there is mingled a great deal of the love of self, so that one love is not present without the other, it cannot yet be called the pure love of God, but receives a special name, the love of chaste concupiscence, amor castce con- cupiscentice. To this love corresponds that fear of eternal pun- ishment, which does not exclude the thought of God, which fears the punishment of hell because it is the loss of the vision of God^ i.e. the pcena damni. This love is called also the amor 78 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE spei, because in it the hope of possessing God in heaven, the highest reward of all pure souls, is an essential element: A higher grade of love, midway between this perfect and imperfect love, is called the love of gratitude, amor gratitvdinis, in which we love God for the benefits which He has conferred. When this love is prompted more by the thought of the gifts than the giver, more by the benefit than by the love of the bene- factor, it approaches in quality to the love of hope {amor spei) ; one reflects on the past, the other on the future. If, however, the motive of this love of gratitude directly regards the giver and his good will towards mankind, then God is loved with a pure love, for God's benevolence and love towards men are intimately united with His perfections. This kind of love of gratitude may well be classed with pure love or caritas. It is a perfect love (1) because God is loved for His own sake, on account of His infinite goodness and love and generosity, which are identical with God Himself; (2) because it is a benevolent love. All love in respect of its object is either selfish or benevo- lent; now this love of gratitude is not selfish because it does not regard its own profit, nor does it strive to gain anything for itself; (3) because it is a love of friendship, for it is a love which wishes well to Him who loves us and makes a return of love for love.^ A great number of distinguished theologians assert that the love of, gratitude is perfect love, and the contrition based on it perfect contrition.^ The Council of Trent might be adduced in favor of this view, since in Sess. 14, cp. 5, can. 4, it enumerates among the motives of imperfect contrition merely the hateful- ness of sin and its punishment without the least reference to the motive of gratitude. It is of considerable moment to settle this point exactly, for, as Deharbe says, ^^a man might never know how to elicit an act of perfect contrition if he were to form a false notion of perfect love. Who can deny that in 8 Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 106, a. 5. ^ Compare Deharbe, Die vollkoiiiniene Liebe Gott^s, § 6, pp. 189-179. ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF PERFECT CONTRFTION 79 many cases salvation depends on an act of perfect contrition, and that even where it is possible to receive the Sacrament of Penance it is always advisable to make at least an effort to arouse not only imperfect but also perfect contrition ?" ^^ We should be loath to omit the remark that the love of Christ crucified is an eminent incentive to perfect love, and that the sorrow for sin which is founded on the thought that sin was the cause of the awful sufferings and shameful death of Our Saviour, belongs to perfect contrition. A man who is well disposed towards Christ, believing Him to be God, has all that is required to arouse perfect love; and if, influenced by this love, he detests and determines to avoid all that brought such great suffering on Christ, he is exercising an act of perfect love and contrition/^ This love is most intimately connected with the love of grati- tude, since ^^for our sins was He wounded and for our iniquities was He stricken." Indeed nothing is so calculated to fill us with gratitude towards God as the thought of all that the Son of God has done and suffered for us. The crib, the cross, and the Sacraments are the three great, monuments of His enduring love towards us, and at the same time they are the three inex- haustible founts of motives of our love for Him. Hence it is that the Church recalls to us so frequently these benefits of Christ. " When we meditate upon her ceremonies and practices, the spirit of her feasts and solemnities, her altars and temples, her prayers, the sense of the liturgies and the object of her devo- tions, our thoughts are compelled to consider the marvelous love of God and what Our Saviour has done and suffered for us, and we are reminded to be thankful to the Lord and to requite His love with our love." ^^ '^^ See Perfect Contrition by Von den Driesch, translated by Father J. Slater, S.J. 11 Lehmkulil, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. I. Tract. I. cp. III. § 1. i'2 Deharbe, Die vollkomraene Liebe Gottes, p. 158. 80 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE From this love of gratitude, as the first stage on the way to pure love, we may ascend yet higher and attain to that entirely pure love by which we seek God as the highest good in Himself, as infinite beauty, as complete perfection, as the source of all goodness, beauty, and perfection, without reference, so far as that is possible, to our own profit. This love is shown by joy in God's perfections (amor complacentice) ; the soul which has this love forgets itself and is lost in the object of its love for which alone it lives; its sole desire is God's happiness (amor henevolentice) , and it would willingly add to it (amor desiderii) ; but since such increase is impossible it rejoices in things as they are (amor gaudii). It cannot be disputed that such a disinterested love is possible on earth, since many pious souls have had it in an eminent degree ; still it must be observed that although the higher stages of love surpass and in surpassing absorb the lower, they do not eliminate them entirely; on the contrary, this pure love does not and cannot exclude the love of hope. It is the explicit teaching of the Church that love for God on earth cannot be so disinterested as to exclude all thought of ourselves and our eternal welfare. This .stage of love answers to filial fear (timor filialis) when one thinks no longer about punishment nor fears it, but dreads to give displeasure or offense to the beloved one and carefully avoids all that arouses the anger of God. The sorrow arising from perfect love is therefore perfect sorrow, contritio. This, like unselfish love, may have varying stages of intensity ^^ and may be more or less perfect; no special degree of intensity, however, is required, and the lowest is suffi- cient. It is only right and desirable, however, that we should have the greatest sorrow possible for our sins, penetrating soul and body, so that the whole man may repent of his faults and 18 Cf. S. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 5. a. 3 ; S. Alphons. Lib. VI. n. Ml ; Gury, II. 11. 453 ; Palraieri, Tract, de Poenitentia, Thes. XXIV. p. 262 sq. EFFECTS OF PERFECT CONTRITION 81 the tools of sin become again instruments of love.^^ This, however, is not always in our power, and, being a grace, we must ask for it. We may now sum up our conclusions: Perfect contrition, contritio, is the hatred of sin proceeding from a pure love of God with a firm resolution of amendment, a disposition which in- cludes filial fear, and, so far from excluding the hope of salva- tion and fear of punishment, tends rather to develop them/^ 12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Procuring it. Perfect contrition restores the sinner to grace at once, even before he has approached the Sacrament of Penance, though the desire of receiving the Sacrament is necessary; it removes the eternal punishment and in part the temporal punishment. The first part of this statement is fidei proxima, for the Coun- cil of Trent teaches ^^ that perfect contrition reconciles man to God before the Sacrament is received, but that this reconcilia- tion by perfect contrition is not effected without the desire, which is included in the act of contrition, of receiving the Sacra- ment. This doctrine was confirmed by the condemnation pronounced by Gregory XIII and Urban VIII on the twenty- first and thirty-second of the propositions of Baius. Baius and Jansenius taught among other things that perfect contrition without the Sacrament cannot restore to grace unless in excep- tional circumstances, e.g. in martyrdom, at the hour of death, when there is no possibility of confessing, or when it is summe intensa. 14 Cat. Roman. P. II. cp. 5, n. 27. 1^ Compare Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakramenten, Fiinfter Teil, Zweiter Abschnitt, § 7, III. Aufl. S. 71 ff. ; Deharbe, Die voll- kommene Liebe Gottes, §§ 2, 3, 6, 8 ; Suarez, De Poen. Disp. 11. Sect. 3 et Disp. IV. Sect. 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 35-42 ; Palmieri, Tract, de Poen. Thes. IV, V ; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. L. I. Tr. I, n. 318. 16 Sess. XIV. cp. 4. 82 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE Finally, this doctrine of the efficacy of perfect contrition is clearly expressed in Holy Scripture and in the monuments of tradition; the proofs belong to the domain of dogmatic the- ology.*^ We add only a single consideration which springs from a well-known principle: Perfect contrition arises from love and is in its essence nothing but an act of love. Now per- fect love unites us to God, so that we live in Him and He in us.^^ This perfect union with God overcomes all separation from Him which arose through sin. Such, then, is the effect of perfect contrition, however poor and weak it may be, for in spite of this it is a sorrow which is inspired and informed by perfect love. Nor does a greater or less degree change the species ; the Council of Trent is positive in its declaration that perfect contrition reconciles us to God, and assigns no limit which must be attained before pro- ducing this effect. Such, too, is the unanimous teaching of St. Thomas,^^ St. Alphonsus,^^ and the other great theologians. The sinner is restored to grace by perfect contrition without the Sacrament only when he has the intention of receiving it, for the actual, or at least intentional, reception of the Sacra- ment is the one single means ordained by Christ for the removal of mortal sin. This intention is included in the act of perfect contrition, as the Council of Trent goes on to teach ; hence all theologians hold that the implicit desire (votum implicitum) is sufficient, for whoever has true contrition has the wish to fulfill all the commands of God, and hence the command of Christ enjoining the confession of sin.^^ Perfect contrition is an act 1'^ The proof is well developed by P- Palmieri, S.J., Tract, de Poenitent. Theses XXII et XXIII, p. 224 (Romse, 1879). Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. QQ. 23-27. 18 1. John iv. 16. 1^ Supplem. Q. 5, a. 3. Quantumcunque parvus sit dolor, dummodo ad con- tritlonn rationem, siifficiat, omnem culpam delet. 20 Lib. VI; n. 441. 21 S. Thorn. Supplem. Q. 5, a. 2 ad 1. Conlrilio vera non fuit, nisi propo- EFFECTS OF PERFECT CONTRFTION 83 of perfect love, and this urges man to fulfill the commands of God in accordance with Christ's words: ^'He who loves Me will keep My word." ^^ Hence it may happen that a sinner is justified by an act of perfect contrition without any actual confession ; it is sufficient that he does not exclude the purpose of confessing his sin.^^ The resolution to confess the sin does not include the resolu- tion to confess it as soon as possible {quani primum). It is enough to confess when a precept of God or of the Church urges. ^^ The other effect of perfect contrition, the remission of eternal punishment, follows from what we have been already consider- ing; moreover the condemnation of Baius' seventieth proposi- tion makes this doctrine proxima fidei. This, too, is the teaching of all Catholic theologians.^^ The guilt is removed by sancti- fying grace; but one who has sanctifying grace is a child of God, and has as his heritage a claim to heaven. Finally, we gather from the Council of Trent ^® and the com- mon doctrine of theologians " that a part also of the temporal punishment of sin, in proportion to the intensity of contrition, is remitted, so that a very great and perfect contrition may blot out all the temporal punishment. Two very practical remarks, applicable both to confessor and to penitent, may find their place here. Mortal sin is not forgiven, and the sinner is not reconciled to God, till he has made good the injury done to God; in other situm conjitendi hahuerit annexum : quod debet ad effectum reduci etiam propter prcEceptum quod est de confessione datum. 2^ John xiv. 23. 23 S. Alph. Lib. YI. n. 437, Dub. 4. 24 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 275; Miiller, 1. c. § 113, 2. 25 S. Thorn. III. Q. 89, a. 4; Suarez, De Poenit. Disp. X. Sect. 2. 26 Sess. VT. c. 14; Sess. XIV. c. 8 et can. 12. 27 S. Bona vent. Theol. verit. L. \\. c. 24. S. Thomas, Suppl. Q. 5, a. 2. Ballerini, De Poenit. L. VI. c. 6. 84 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE words, till he has done penance. This is a truth of faith. ^^ It follows, then, that he who has the misfortune to fall into sin is obliged to repent of it, and in such wise as to obtain forgiveness ; to adopt any other course is to frustrate the whole end of his existence. He must therefore make an act of perfect contrition, or supplement the imperfect contrition by the Sacrament of Penance. This obligation is certainly pressing when there is danger of death, because it is the necessary means for salvation, and every man is bound by love of God and of himself to take precautions against being forever an enemy of God and of being involved in eternal damnation. The question now arises whether on other grounds there is a strict obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, for instance, from the consideration of God who has been offended, or for our own interests, since we may die at any moment, and because one who is in a state of mortal sin is but httle capable of avoiding other mortal sins. The following answer may be given : — 1. God might have insisted that the sinner should make good at once after his sin the evil committed, and the injury done to God by mortal sin would be quite motive enough for such legis- lation. As a matter of fact God does not make any such de- mand; instead of insisting on His rights. He is long-suffering and permits the sinner to heap offense on offense. On the other hand, a man cannot remain long in mortal sin without offending God again and once more incurring sin; for it is an insult to the love we owe to God to remain long a slave of the devil and an enemy of God, and such behavior on the part of the sinner makes him guilty of contempt of God's friendship and rights. To incur, however, grievous sin in this way, the neglect to make an act of perfect contrition must have extended 2^ Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. 1. c, from which we infei' that penance is neces- sary for salvation necessitate medii. OBLIGATION OF PERFECT CONTRITION 85 over a considerable time. As to what constitutes a considerable time, it is not easy to define a hard-and-fast limit; a period of several years would certainly be considerable, and it would be a grave sin to remain so long a time in the state of mortal sin; but a man who reconciles himself to God within the hmits of the time prescribed by the Church for confession would certainly not incur a new sin per se, special circumstances, of course, being excluded which might demand that an act of perfect con- trition be made at once.^^ The possibihty of dying before being reconciled to God is certainly a very strong motive to induce a man to consult the safety of his soul and to free it as soon as possible from the state of mortal sin; for at any moment death may surprise a man without warning. If, however, there be no pressing danger of death, that possibility is not sufficient to make delay of recon- ciliation a new sin; hence one who dies a sudden death may be plunged into hell by sins for which he had not atoned, but he would not be guilty of a new sin by having put off his repentance. But there is an obhgation to avoid putting off for a long time one's conversion, and hence an act of perfect contrition after mortal sin, because a man in the state of mortal sin is in the greatest danger of falling into other mortal sins, since he has not strength enough to vanquish severe temptations and to with- stand the violence of his passions, and since, as St. Gregory the Great ^^ says, the unrepented mortal sins which burden his soul draw him by their weight into other worse sins. '^ Without sanctifying grace it is not possible to refrain long from mortal sin," says St. Thomas ;^^ the sinner might, if he wished, have 29 Ballerini deals excellently with this point in his Op. Theol. Mor. in cp. III. De prsec. et oblig. confession, n. 138 ss. Cf. Suarez, De Poenit. Disp. 15, Sect. 6, n. 7 ; Sporer, De Poen. n. 186. 30 In Ezechiel, Lib. I. Horn. 11, n. 24. 31 1. II. Q. 109, a. 8. 86 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the necessary moral strength to overcome temptation and to resist his passions; he might curb them by the divine power of grace; but there is the law of the distribution of God's graces, that God gives only to those who love Him efficacious grace, and while a man persists of his own free will in the state of sin and enmity with God, he equivalently expresses his contempt of grace and so makes himself unworthy of it. As God is ever pouring richer and richer graces on those who make good use of them and cooperate with them, so He withdraws them from those who neglect and resist them. Hence we may adopt the well-founded teaching of St. Alphonsus,^^ who states that the sinner ought not to put off for longer than a month his reconcil- iation with God ; in other words, that the act of perfect contri- tion should not be delayed beyond that time. By such delay, he would incur a new sin. This subject, moreover, is intimately connected with the duty of eliciting the act of love ; for accord- ing to a very probable opinion of many theologians, of whom the authority is recognized and approved by St. Alphonsus, we are bound to elicit at least once a month an act of love, because we should keep God's commands either not at all or at least with great difficulty if we failed for so long a time to ehcit such an act, and if we were so httle soHcitous about our duty of loving God. It is impossible to make an act of perfect love without bewailing one's sins by which a God so infinitely worthy of love has been offended. Hence St. Alphonsus in his practical direc- tions to confessors says: ^^ '^The duty of making an act of con- trition is urgent when one is obliged to make an act of love." ^^ 32 Lib. YI. n. 437. 83 Tract. 16, cp. 2, n. 10. 34 The question raised by theologians as to whether it is a distinct sin to put off eliciting the act of perfect contrition and reconciliation with God, must be answered in the affirmative, for Holy Scripture enjoins us not to delay our conversion or to put off penance from day to day, because the anger of God may come upon us when we are so unprepared (cf . Ecclus. v. 8, 9, where, however, no express command is laid down), and because the OBLIGATION OF PERFECT CONTRITION 87 Since the faithful for the most part are ignorant of any obU- gation of making an act of perfect contrition within a given time after falHng into mortal sin, and, therefore, incur no sin by the non-fulfillment of it, the confessor need not trouble him- self to make inquiries about it in the past life of his penitents ; indeed he may abstain from instructing them on the existence of such obhgation. But he should not fail — without, however, mentioning that neglect means a new sin — to urge his penitents by other motives to return to a state of grace, for the future, as quickly as possible after falhng into mortal sin, at least by an act of perfect contrition, and, if occasion offer, by going to con- fession. Sad experience shows that one fall into mortal sin is very soon followed by others.^^ Finally, there is an obligation {per accidens) to awaken per- fect contrition when one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is required and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. A priest, for instance, is in a state of mortal sin and is called upon to administer one of the Sacraments, or one of the prceceptum caritatis which we ought to obey scepius in vita calls for an act of contrition. Aertnys reconciles this affirmative opinion of Lugo, Suarez, St. Alphon- sus, etc., with the opposite view of Navarro, Vasquez, Soto, etc., declaring the latter to be probable per se loquendo, while the former is true de ohligq- tione per accident, so that the sinner who fails to elicit an act of perfect contrition within a reasonable period is not to be acquitted of incurring a new mortal sin. Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VL Tract. V. cp. 3, n. 168. St. Alphon- sus expressly condemns the view of Concina and Roncaglia that a delay of a week is a considerable period ; and similarly he rejects the opinion of Laymann, Lugo, the Salmanticenses, Elbel, etc., who maintain that sin has been incurred only by the neglect of contrition for a whole year. This latter view he cannot accept, even if there were no other reason than the duty of eliciting an act of love once in the month. Finally, he rejects the opinion of some theologians that a sinner must elicit acts of contrition on feast-days in order to fulfill the object of sanctifying the festival ; the gen- eral answer is made that the object of any given precept does not fall under the precept. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. IIT. n. 1035 ss. 35 Muller, 1. c. Lib. III. L II. § 115, I; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 278; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 168, Q. L 88 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE faithful has to receive one of the Sacraments of the Hving and cannot get absolution beforehand. This also holds true if an act of perfect love has to be made; in this case every one is obHged, when there occurs to his mind a mortal sin not yet repented of, to detest the same and to be sorry for it from the motive of the love of God. According to the general opinion of theologians an act of love should be made in the hour of death, whence St. Alphonsus teaches that a dying man who has confessed with only imperfect sorrow should be recommended to elicit an act of perfect contrition, for it is impossible to make an act of love without bewailing the sins from the same motive of love.^*' Finally, this duty is pressing when one is exposed to severe temptations which cannot be overcome while one is in a state of enmity with God. We would add another observation : Since perfect contrition is so pleasing to God and so helpful to those sinners especially who have fallen seriously, the pastor of souls should seize every opportunity of instructing the faithful and urging them to elicit such acts frequently, especially when they are in danger of death and have no opportunity of approaching the Sacrament of Pen- ance. Children particularly should be taught on this subject, and a good form of the act given to them. They may have need of it themselves in order to be saved from eternal damnation, and they may come to the assistance of their elders at the hour of death; indeed experience teaches that well-instructed children more than once have reminded people in such straits of the act of perfect contrition, and have persuaded those persons to make it with them ; finally, what has been learned in childhood will turn out useful to many in their old age. 13. Imperfect Contrition. The effects of imperfect contrition {attrition) are not so great as those of perfect contrition. Imperfect contrition, which ex- "^ H. A. 1. c. n. 11, Lib. VT. n. 437, Dub. 2 ; Suarez, Disp. 15, Sect. 4, n. 19 ; Lacroix, Lib. IL n. 142, etc. IMPERFECT CONTRITION 89 eludes the desire of sinning and includes the hope of pardon (this belongs to the sorrow necessary for the Sacrament of Penance), is the proximate disposition which the sinner must have if he is to be justified in the Sacrament of Penance. This is of faith.^^ Passages almost innumerable of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, decrees of Councils and theologians, present this doc- trine as revealed by God.^^ Consequently it is the common and certain teaching of theo- logians that to receive the grace of the Sacrament of Penance imperfect contrition is sufficient, and that perfect contrition is not of necessity. The Council of Trent declares expressly: ^^\lthough imperfect contrition without the Sacrament of Pen- ance is not able per se to restore the sinner to justifying grace, yet it disposes him for the reception of grace in this Sacrament." The Council is speaking here of the ultimate or proximate dispo- sition which, in union with the Sacrament, suffices for the remis- sion of sin; for it opposes the efficacy of imperfect contrition with the Sacrament to its inefficacy without the Sacrament. Without the Sacrament it cannot produce justification, but dis- poses towards its reception in the Sacrament ; it must therefore produce in the Sacrament this justification, and the disposition of which the Council speaks must be understood of the proximate disposition which is immediately followed by grace ; otherwise the contrast drawn between the two would have no meaning. 3^ Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5, which is directed against Luther's doctrine that all fear of punishment is wicked, and that imperfect contri- tion, founded on the fear of hell, by making a man a hypocrite, makes him a greater sinner. Cf. Bellarmin, De Poen. Lib. 11. cp. 2; Mohler, Sym- bolism, § 33. Luther's error was in part adopted by Bains, Jansenius, and Quesnel. Cf. Prop. 60, 61, 62 et 67 Quesnellii a P. M. Clem. XI in Bulla " Unigenitus," proscript; Prop. 15 et 16 damn, ab Alexandre VIII, in which some of Quesnel's errors are again condemned. ^^ Cf . Bellarmin, 1. c. Lib. II. cp. 17 ; Perrone, De Poenitent. n. 46 s. ; Ri- palda, De Ente supernaturali, Tom. IV. Disp. 22, Sect. 4-11, et Lib. VI. Disp. ult. n. 458-460; Palraieri, Tract, de Poenitentia, pp. 280-353 (Rom. 1879) ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. De sufficientia attritionis, n. 42-50. 90 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE This conclusion is confirmed when we consider the institution of the Sacrament. Christ's object in instituting this Sacrament was to restore the baptized to the Hfe of grace; if it did not really confer the grace of justification, it would have been a means frustrated of its end, and would not have the power which it was intended to have; it could not be expected to call for dispositions Avhich of themselves would atone for sin, and this would be the case if perfect contrition were the required dispo- sition. A remedy for a disease would be a poor gift if it could •not cure the disease until the latter was already removed. Finally, the Church received the power of the keys in order that it might loose or retain sins; if perfect contrition were required as the necessary condition, the sins would not be re- mitted by the power of the keys, but by the dispositions of the penitent. Therefore imperfect contrition is sufficient for justifi- cation in the Sacrament of Penance. ^^ Since imperfect contrition in union with the Sacrament has the same effects as perfect contrition w^ithout the Sacrament, theologians say that the penitent becomes in the Sacrament ex attrito contritus; this expression is not to be understood of the act, as though attritio became contritio. Imperfect contrition, as we have already seen, arises from the thought of the hideousness of sin and from the fear of the pun- ishment which God in His justice inflicts on the sinner. The following are the classes into which, according to St. Thomas/^ fear is divided : — 1. Worldly fear, timor mundanus, when man is feared more than God, or when one offends God in order to avoid suffering. 2. Natural fear, timor naturalis, the fear of temporal mis- fortunes. 39 S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. YI. n. 440; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. T. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. L a. VI; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. ii. 176; Palmieri, Tract, de Poenit. Thes. XXV. p. 286 ss. 40 II. II. Q. 19, a. 2-9. IMPERFECT CONTRITION 91 3. Slavish fear, timor serviliter servilis, when one shrinks from sin merely from fear of punishment, and when one is ready to sin again if there were no punishment. Theologians say of such a man : solum maniim cohibet, voluntatem autem non retrahit a peccato. Quite distinct from this fear is : — 4. Servile fear, timor servilis, when a man fears the punish- ments which God inflicts on sin, and on that account really avoids and detests sin: qui non solum manum sed etiam volun- tatem cohibet a peccato, as the schoolmen express it. 5. Filial fear, timor filialis seu castus, is the fear of a man who honors and loves God as his Lord and Father, and from that motive avoids sin and loves the law of God. The last two kinds of fear conjoined form : — 6. Mixed fear, timor viixtus seu initialis, which is the disposi- tion of a man who fears sin because it offends God and also be- cause it is punished. Hence St. Thomas gives a clear and short account of these last three kinds of fear : Sometimes man turns to God and clings to Him because he is afraid of evil. This evil may be twofold, the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. If a man turn and cling to God from fear of punishment, this is servile fear; and when it is done from fear of guilt it is fihal fear, for children are afraid of offending their father; if, how- ever, it is done from the fear of the punishment and of the guilt, it is then timor initialis, which is intermecUate between servile and filial fear.^^ The sorrow proceeding from servile fear is attritio, that im- perfect sorrow which, when it excludes the desire of sinning and is joined to the hope of pardon, disposes the sinner to receive the grace of justification in the Sacrament of Penance. It may now be asked whether, along with this imperfect sorrow based on fear as its only motive, there may not be required besides, in order « 11. II. Q. 19, a. 2 ; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. JI. Q. I. 92 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE to dispose the sinner proxime for the receiving of grace, some sort of love, at least initial, or whether this love be included in that sorrow. On this subject the Council has given no direct answer. In the seventeenth century this question was debated with such heat that Alexander VII (June, 1667), in order to establish peace, forbade, in the strongest terms and under pain of excommunication latce sententice, that any of the disputants in this matter should accuse their opponents of heresy. Four dis- tinct views were proposed and defended on this subject : — 1. The first view teaches that sorrow from the motive of fear, as long as it is true sorrow, is quite sufficient of itself for obtain- ing sanctifying grace in the Sacrament. This sorrow produces hatred and detestation of sin and a return to God's law, and is inseparable from the hope of pardon. Hence the sinner becomes capable of receiving the grace of the Sacrament. Melchior Canus is the most famous of the defenders of this view, who are called Attritionists because they hold that mere attrition from the fear of the punishments inflicted on sin is a sufficient disposition. They thought that every sort of love was excluded from, this con- trition based on fear, a position which seems impossible both psychologically and in view of the action of grace; as was evi- dently the general opinion of the Fathers at the Council of Trent. Instead of the present clause in cap. 4 : attritio eum ad gratiam in Sacramento poenitentice impetrandam disponit, another had been presented to them : ad constitutionem sacramenti sufficit, ac donum Dei esse ac Spiritus S. impulsum verissimum non adhuc quidem inhahitantis sed tantum moventis quo pamitens adjutus {cum sine aliquo dilectionis in Deum motu esse vix queat) viam sihi ad justitiam munit et per eam ad Dei gratiam facilius impetrandum disponitur. Since it was urged that men of eminent learning made a distinction between such sorrow and love, the present form of the clause was chosen in order to avoid defining a scho- lastic question on which the Doctors were not of one mind ; by using the word disponit the Council did not wish to mean a IMPERFECT CONTRITION 93 sufficient disposition, and to indicate this more clearly it pur- posely avoided the use of the word sufficit^^ 2. The second opinion holds that the sorrow based on fear is sufficient only when there is joined with it some beginning of the love of God, as our highest good. This view supported by the most eminent theologians rests on sohd foundations, and is now the more usual opinion among theologians. That there is nothing in this view opposed to the Council of Trent is clear from what has been said above on this point. In another place in the Sixth Session (cap. 6) there is indirect authority for it, where the Council, in describing the -progress towards prepara- tion for the first grace, teaches that the sinner who is disposing his soul for justification must begin to love God as the source of all justice.^^ Hence as preparation for the first justification of adults a be- ginning at least of love is required. Now what is required for their first justification in Baptism, that, at the very least, is demanded for the second justification by Penance, since, as the Fathers express it. Penance is a toilsome Baptism, haptismus lahoriosus; consequently if a distinction is to be made in terms of greater or less, greater dispositions are required for Penance *2 Pallaviciiii, Hist. Concil. Trid. L. XIII. c. 10. Palmieri tries to weaken the force of this argument ; see Tract, de Poenit. Thesis XXX. p. 331 ss. ^^ "They [adults] dispose themselves for justification when, being urged and supported by God's grace, receiving faith by hearing, they approach God of their own free will, believing that to be true which is revealed and promised by God, and especially this, that the sinner is justified by God through His grace, through the redemption in Jesus Christ; and while they acknowledge their sins, they are led by fear of the divine justice, of which they have a wholesome dread, to the consideration of God's mercy, and thence are encouraged to hope, so that they trust that God will be gracious to them for Christ's sake, and they will begin to love Him as the source of all justice." Sess. YI. cp. 6; cf. can. 3: "If any one say that a man without previous inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without His help can believe, hope, love, and do penance as is required in order to attain the grace of justification, a. s." 94 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE than for Baptism. Moreover, the Council is unmistakably clear in its declaration that what it teaches with regard to the first justification apphes equally to the justification by penance/^ In the place where the Council treats of the sorrow re- quired as a preparation for the Sacrament of Penance, it speaks of it plainly as the beginning of a new fife ; ^^ such it could not be if it did not include love, or at least the beginnings of love; for since the new life consists in the love of God, the beginning of the new life must of necessity include the beginning of the love of God/« A third reason may be found in the very nature of the subject. According to the Church's teaching, the justification of an adult means a real conversion, and this of itself includes a beginning of love. By mortal sin man turns from God to the creature ; if the conversion is to be real, he must not only turn away from the creature, but also return to God, and that cannot happen without some initial love. Moreover, it is in the very nature of man ever to desire and love something as his highest good, be it the creature, as happens in mortal sin, or the Creator ; since by his conversion he ceases to make the creature his sole object and aim, he must direct his desires to God the uncreated good, and so must love God at least as his highest good. But this love which is required to accompany imperfect con- trition in order to make it a sufficient disposition for obtaining grace in the Sacrament, is not the beginning of the amor henevo- *^ Cf. Procemium to the Fourth Session de .7. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 199 Likewise, a large gathering of penitents (concursus magnus poenitentium) on the occasion of a great feast or indulgence is never a reason for want of integrity in confession, for this is not a case of necessity and it would expose the priest to the risk of giving absolution to ill-disposed subjects. Nor can excep- tion be made to the rule of integrity because people might con- jecture from the time taken in the confessional that the penitent had committed very many sins.^^ II. Besides the case of physical impossibility, however, there are others which justify an incomplete avowal of sin; they are in general such external or accidental difficulties in connection with the confession which render a complete accusation mor- ally impossible, or involve grave harm to the penitent or the confessor. ^Vhen the impediment no longer exists the law of God comes again into force; the moral impossibility of mak- ing a complete confession does not altogether cancel the duty of making it, but only suspends it, since the precept of confes- sion is not one that is confined to any fixed time or state, but extends over one's lifetime; hence mortal sins which have not been confessed must be mentioned later when opportunity offers. III. In order that the excuse of moral impossibility may be pleaded it is necessary, 1, that there should be a real or probable risk of great harm ; 2, that it is impossible to find another con- fessor to whom a full disclosure may be made without fear of this particular harm; 3, that only those sins or circumstances be kept back of which the avowal would cause harm; and finally, 4, that the confession cannot be put off. IV. Physical impossibihty might result from, 1, inculpable forgetfulness or inculpable ignorance, or only venially culpable ignorance and forgetfulness. A man who is ignorant invinci- hiliter et inculpahiliter that the particular act which he calls to 93 S. Alph. 1. c. L. YL n. 485. 200 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE mind is sinful, or does not know that his sin must be confessed with its number and species and circumstances changing the species, is not bound to integrity in confession ; there is still less obligation on an uneducated and weak-minded penitent. If, again, a man in examining his conscience cannot recall a past sin, or, having recalled it, forgets about it in the confessional, *he is physically incapable of making a complete confession. (On this point see the preceding paragraph.) It is to be noticed, however, that in the case of gravely culpable negligence or care- lessness in examining the conscience an imperfect confession is invalid ; if, for example, a man through his own fault is ignorant how confession ought to be made, or was unwilling to make a careful examination of his conscience. On the other hand, one is not obliged to go to confession sooner in order not to forget past sins, though frequent confession is much to be recommended ; for we are bound only to accuse ourselves of the sins of which we are conscious at the time of confession after making a dili- gent examination of conscience. 2. There is, moreover, physical inability when there is immi- nent danger of death (a) on account of the penitent's condition being such that if he should try to make a complete confession he may die before receiving absolution ; (6) in a common danger, such as shipwreck, before a battle, during a violent epidemic or a swift conflagration. If in such a case there is no time to hear the confession of each individual, it is enough for all to make a general confession of their sins in order to receive absolu- tion, and the priest may give it, using for all the one formula: Ego vos ahsolvo. . . . Finally, (c) when the confessor himself is near death and no other priest is at hand. The following instructions may be observed by confessors in actual practice : — (a) In case of extreme necessity the accusation of some spe- cific sin must be made so far as it is possible, but in the case of a dying man who is still conscious the confessor should be more BEASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 201 solicitous about exciting contrition than about seciu-ing a com- plete confession; in the case, however, of a penitent deprived of consciousness, especially if he gave no previous sign of repent- ance, the confessor may give absolution conditionally and then devote his care to the administration of Extreme Unction, which in such a case is more certainly valid and efficacious than the absolution itself ; meanwhile, however, there would be no reason for not giving the absolution beforehand. (b) If only one confession has to be heard and there is immi- nent danger, say, from an attack by an enemy, the confessor should get the penitent to mention some one sin, to make an act of contrition, and he should then absolve him, when under the circumstances the absolution is a matter of necessity. If there are several who wish to make their peace with God, as before a battle or in a shipwreck, the following points are to be observed: — (a) If the danger is very pressing, the confessor must exhort all to make acts of contrition and purpose of amendment, or, still better, himself make along with them acts of contrition and amendment, and get them to give some sign of their sorrow and their self-accusation, as by raising their hands or striking their breasts; then he may give them absolution in a body.^* (/3) If there is time enough for each one to approach the con- fessor, though not for making a complete confession, they should be admitted singly in order the better to secure the salvation of each one, in such numbers as the time will permit ; and in order that as many as possible, if not all, may be heard, the accusation may be as short as possible; thus contrition will be more genuine. Of course the penitents will be told that in the event of their lives being spared they must make up what was wanting to the integrity of the confession. ^^ 94 Keuter, Theol. Moral. Quadripartita, Tom. IV. Tract. V. Q. IX. n. 331, exempl. 95 Reuter, 1. c. n. 331, exempl. 5 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 329. 202 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE 3. Physical inability may also arise from the defectus loquelce of the dumb who cannot make a complete confession either by writing or by signs. For them it is sufficient if they confess one or other sin by signs. If the defect be only a stutter, the peni- tent must confess as best he can.^^ 4. The defectus auditus of the deaf who cannot express them- selves nor hear the questions which the confessor must put in order that the confession may be complete, can be reckoned as a physical inability^. They are obliged to make a perfect con- fession ex sua parte, i.e. to mention all that so far as they know is required for a perfect confession, and thus they may not keep back anything. Those who are merely hard of hearing are not on the same footing with the deaf ; their confession should be made in a place where the voice may be raised without others overhearing what is said. If, however, the confessor should find out only in the course of the confession that the penitent is hard of hearing, and he cannot take him to a more retired place without fear of causing the bystanders to suspect that some grave sin has been confessed and so violating the seal, he may resign himself to permitting an imperfect confession and may refrain from putting questions. With women the confessor must be particularly on his guard not to give grounds for evil interpretation, since many people are quick to suspect wrong. Thus it Would be imprudent for him to admit women penitents to confession at times when the church is less frequented ; since absolute security for the seal of confession would even then not be attainable, and suspicion would in all likelihood be easily aroused. If the confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of deaf people in the church and he has doubts as to the integrity of the accu- sation, he must be more solicitous for the seal than for the in- tegrity of the confession; hence he must refrain from questions ^^ Compare § 20, Confessions of the Dumb who are Able to Write. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 203 as to the number or circumstances of the sins and must give a very slight and ordinary penance, so that those who overhear his words may not be led to conclude that the penitent has been confessing mortal sins." 5. Finally, ignorance of the language constitutes a physical impossibility for those unable to find a confessor understanding them; for such people it is sufficient if they manifest their con- trition and their sins as far as they can by signs. The con- fessor, in default of any other priest knowing the language, must admit them to confession and aliquoties absolve them even if he can barely make out the most general accusation. V. A moral impossibility exists, as before remarked, when great harm ensuing to the penitent or to the confessor or to some third person is to be feared from the completeness of the con- fession ; the harm to be feared must preponderate over the mate- rial integrity of the confession. Therefore exception is made to the demand of integrity (com- pleteness) in confession : — 1. When there is risk of infamy (periculum inf amice), if the penitent is exposed to lose the esteem he is held in not only by the confessor but also by others. This may happen in various ways, particularly if the penitent is so placed that a perfect con- fession would be overheard by others, or if the time required for a complete confession were so long that it would give rise to unfavorable suspicions. Such a case is most likely to happen when others know that the penitent has been in the habit of confessing, and the latter, on account of those confessions being invalid, is obliged to repeat them, while the time for a communion which he cannot postpone without exciting comment, is quite close. A sick man, for instance, has confessed and is about to receive 97 S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. yi. n. 644; Prax. Conf. n. 104; H. Ap. n. 155; Gury-Ballei-ini, 1. c. 11. n. 503, Not. ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 297, Q. III. 204 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the viaticum ; he reveals to the priest that he has made several sacrilegious confessions. To repeat these in full would excite suspicions on the part of the bystanders who thought that he was prepared to receive holy communion. Or, to use another illustration, on the occasion of some solemn and public communion in common one of the communicants goes to the priest a short time before communion and reveals that he has made a sacrilegious confession; since there is no time to repeat it, it is enough if he makes an act of sorrow, men- tions the sacrilegious confession and perhaps one or two of his other sins ; he must then be absolved and later, of course, make a full confession. Or, a priest is already at the altar, about to offer the holy sacrifice, but remembers that he has mortal sins on his soul not yet confessed; he makes a short act of contrition and confesses his sins to an assisting priest who is standing close by him; the latter will then give absolution secretly. Outside the case of necessity where a priest must celebrate Mass or a person is to receive communion, the penitent is in nowise excused from mak- ing a full confession on the ground that others, noticing the length of time spent in the confessional, should suspect him of being guilty of many grave sins.^® 2. When there is danger of breach of the seal of confession (periculum IcBsionis sigilli), as when, which is a very rare case, it should be foreseen that the confessor would break the seal, or in the case where a confessor could not reveal his own sins without at the same time revealing the sins of his penitent and so breaking the seal. The first case, i.e. where the confessor breaks the seal — with- out, of course, intending to do so — might happen when the priest speaks so loud that he can be overheard by those in the neighborhood, and in spite of representations still fails to subdue 98 Aertnys, 1. c. n. 195, Q. I ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 330. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 205 his voice, either because he is deaf, or because his zeal runs away with him, or because he is afflicted with some defect of voice which prevents him talking in a lower tone. This would be only an indirect breach of the seal, certainly not to be sanctioned but rather to be severely blamed as wrong and sinful. If, then, the confessor speaks too loud, and continues to do so even after the penitent has reminded him of ths fault, the latter is justified in keeping back part of h*s confession so that the confessor may not in the course of his questions reveal to the bystanders the sins confessed. If, however, the penitent has an exaggerated dread that his confessor may break the seal by making revelations outside the confessional, he is not justified in withholding his confession in full, for he imagines a sin so horrible that the suspicion of it could only be entertained in the case of heretics. This holds true at least as far as a direct breach of the seal is concerned. A penitent could hardly ever be dispensed from a full confes- sion on account of such a fear, and if he were to reveal to another confessor that such a motive had prompted him to keep back some of his sins, the confessor could not receive this as an excuse without further inquiry. On the other hand, the danger of a breach of the seal on the part of a priest who confesses the sins he has incurred in hearing confessions is not beyond the bounds of possibility; in this case he must pass over in silence those sins which would involve such a risk.^^ 3. When danger of scandal (periculum scandali) is to be feared either with respect to the priest or the penitent. Such a case might occur where the penitent is afraid of sinning by taking pleasure in thoughts against charity and especially against purity when examining his conscience ; his duty then would be to avoid dwelling upon the number and circumstances even at the risk 99 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 195, and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 332. 206 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE of making an incomplete confession, for the natural law of avoid- ing the danger of grave sin prevails over the positive law of mak- ing a complete confession. The same reason may be a motive to the confessor to be very prudent in questioning such peni- tents so as not to expose them to commit new offenses against God in the very Sacrament of reconciliation. If a penitent have well-grounded fears of the confessor's weak- ness and that the latter will, if he hear a peccatmn turpe, give way to bad thoughts or cause him to sin, he is bound to avoid such a confessor ; if, however, in a case of necessity, he requires his help and cannot find another confessor hie et nunc, he may omit those sins of which the avowal would be dangerous. A priest who knows that his weakness exposes him to great risks in hearing confessions must withdraw from the confessional if it be at all possible, unless there be good reasons to suppose that the fear arises from some unforeseen and exceptional inci- dent ; in such a case the confessor must omit the questions which ordinarily would have to be put to secure the completeness of the accusation. ^'Dangers of this kind are not to be lightly and unreasonably supposed, but only on solid grounds; and if it be a question of danger to , the confessor, onlj^ after very unmistakable indi- cations." ''' 4. When a scrupulous penitent is always tortured with the thought that his previous confessions have not been valid and believes that his sins have never been properly confessed. ^"^ Such penitents are to be forbidden to make detailed examina- tion of conscience even though in consequence their confessions should fall short of the necessary completeness. 5. When there is danger of bodily harm {damnum corporate 100 Lehinkuhl, 1. c. n. 331 ; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. 1. P. TIT. Q. IT. nn. 68 et 69. 101 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 488 ; Aertnys, 1. c. ; Elbel, Theol. Moral. Vol. III. P. IX. De Poenit. ii. 150. See § 72, Treatment of the Scrupulous in Con- fession. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 207 or periculum vitce). If, for instance, a long confession exposed the priest to danger of infection, even though by other precau- tions he might lessen the danger or perhaps quite reduce it, in order to avoid the risk he may allow the penitent to state quite briefly a few sins, thus contenting himself with an imperfect confession, and may then give absolution ; moreover, if the peni- tent is so weak and exhausted by the illness as to be unable without grave harm, or great increase of suffering and weaken- ing of his condition, to examine his conscience carefully and so make a perfect confession, the priest ought not to annoy him by questions, but rather try to awaken contrition and then give absolution even after an incomplete confession/*'^ It was observed above (n. 4) that moral inability to make a complete confession can only be admitted when the confession cannot be put off and is urgent hie et nunc. The confession may be regarded as urgent, 1, when the peni- tent is in danger of death ; 2, when the precept of annual confes- sion and communion is instant; 3, if the reception of holy communion or the celebration of Mass cannot be put off without confusion or scandal ; and, 4, if otherwise the penitent could not again approach confession for a long period. Reuter ^^^ and Lugo consider a delay of more than three days long enough for a man in mortal sin to regard the case as urgent; indeed one may consider the impotentia moralis as justified if a man were compelled to remain in mortal sin one or two days. There is a special difficulty in solving the question whether a sin can or ought to be confessed which cannot be disclosed with- out damaging the reputation of the partner of the sin in the eyes of the confessor. Theologians do not agree in their opinions, but are all unanimous in teaching, 1, that a penitent is obHged to seek, if possible, another confessor to whom he can make a complete confession and to whom the accomplice is unknown, 102 S. Alph. 1. c. ; Stotz and Aertnys, 1. c. 103 L. c. n. 331. Cf. St. Alph. 1. c. n. 487. 208 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and in this way save his neighbor's reputation; and, 2, that if the sin which cannot be confessed without injury to the char- acter of the accomphce is not necessary matter of confession, it ought not to be revealed unless the sin of the accomplice be only slight and the confession of that particular sin be of pecul- iar benefit to the penitent. If, nevertheless, the accomplice be revealed to the confessor, such revelation, in accordance with a very probable opinion, is not to be regarded as a grave sin; for according to the teach- ing of a number of theologians, whom St. Alphonsus approves and with whom St. Thomas seems to agree, it is not a gravely sinful defamation to reveal the sins of another to one or other trustworthy and upright man. Though many theologians de- clare this to be gravely sinful if done without reason, the oppo- site opinion is so well founded that it may be followed in practice as quite probable. ^°^ But if it is at all probable, it is much more so when the sin of another is revealed to a priest who is bound to the most inviolable secrecy by the highest and holiest ties. Hence it follows that the revelation of the accomplice is cer- tainly no sin when there is reasonable ground for it ; such would be, for instance, if the confession made to a priest who knows the accomplice were useful or necessary to the penitent, sup- posing that no other confessor, to whom the accomphce is un- known, were available; furthermore, the penitent is not bound to seek another confessor unacquainted with the accomphce if the search involves great trouble or loss. With these premises we approach the question : May a peni- tent, or ought he, confess a mortal sin which cannot be revealed without at the same time revealing the accomplice to the con- fessor, or may he omit the mention of that sin and so detract from the completeness of his confession? The greater number of theologians and those of most weight ^^^ Cf. Aertiiys, Lib. III. Tract. VIII. De octavo Prsecepto Decalogi, n. 53i, Q. 2. BEASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 209 teach that the revelation of the complex is not a reason excusing from an entire accusation, since it is no violation of the jus natu- rale which safeguards the reputation of another to reveal the secret sins of one's neighbor for good reasons to a prudent and upright man, and the law of charity. only forbids defamation of one's neighbor without reason ; in this case, however, there is a causa justa, and a very urgent reason, viz., the making of a per- fect confession and the guidance of the conscience. The precept of making a sincere accusation is potioris juris than the precept of not defaming the neighbor, so that such defamation in face of the need of making a complete confession is to be regarded as of no account. Lugo rejects, as involving a petitio principii, the other argument advanced by the defenders of this view, namely, that the penitent is simply making use of his right to confess his sin, and that the accompHce by participating in the sin has surrendered his claim to his reputation so far as it is affected by the confession of the sins ; he adduces another argu- ment: that since the benefits resulting from confession are so immense that Christ has bound the penitent to endure the shame of revealing his own sins, it is a natural consequence that to obtain such benefits one may be allowed to reveal another's sin.^^^ The same is taught by St. Thomas,^^^ St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, St. Bernard, Gerson, Cajetan, Henriquez,Suarez,^^^ Lugo,^^* Laymann, Vasquez/*^^ Toletus, Reginald Lessius, Tam- burini, Salmanticenses,"'' Renter."^ St. Alphonsus "^ also holds this view. At the same time they teach that the penitent is bound, if he can manage it commode, to spare the reputation of his accomplice by going to a confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown; and St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the view that this is matter of counsel and not of precept. Thus the 105 Lugo, 1. c. n. 398. io9 Q. 91, dub. 3, a. 2. 106 In IV. dist. 16, Q. 3, a. 2. no C. 8, n. 128. 107 Disp. 34, Sect. 2. m P. IV. n. 321. 108 Disp. 16, n. 398 sq. 112 L. c. n. 489. 210 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE penitent is freed from the obligation of seeking out another con- fessor only (a) when there is danger of death or when the annual confession can no longer be put off; (b) when the penitent by refraining from communion or from the celebration of Mass would be exposed to misinterpretation and shame; (c) when a penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and would be obhged to re- main in that condition one or two days (per hiduum into etiam per diem) till he could find another confessor ; (d) when the com- plex may be presumed to have given up his claim to his good reputation, as in the case of a brother who having sinned with his sister knows that she will not go to another confessor without her mother; {e) when a priest being accustomed to celebrate every day, and a lay person being accustomed to communicate daily, would find much difficulty in omitting these pious acts ; (/) when a person finds great repugnance in revealing his or her state of soul to another confessor; (g) when otherwise the penitent would be deprived of a jubilee or other indulgence; (h) mothers or husbands may be excused when through a wish to have coun- sel or sympathy they reveal the sins of their children, etc., to a confessor who knows the latter, especially when they find it hard to approach another confessor; (i) when the seeking of another confessor involves a privation of consolation and peace for the penitent accustomed to a wise and helpful spiritual di- rector. Hence it is evident that a penitent is rarely, if ever, obliged to seek another confessor under the given circumstances."^ The other opinion, that it is not allowed to reveal the accom- plice, and in consequence that one is not bound to mention a mortal sin which cannot be confessed without reveahng the accompHce, is taught, among others, by Canus, Petrus Soto, Ledesma, Navarrus, Valentia, Banez, etc. Busenbaum and Mazzotta deemed the opinion probable."^ These theologians urge that it is a violation of the natural law to injure the good "3 S. Alph. 1. c. 490 ; Gury-Baller. TT. 500, Q IT. "* De Pcenit. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. 7, § 1 ab initio. BEASONS EXCUSING FHOM COMPLETE ACCUSATION '111 name of another, and hence that the obHgation of not inflict- ing such injury is potioris juris than the duty of making a com- plete confession, since this is founded on a positive law. It need not be imagined, however, that this opinion is the henignior, because it releases from the duty of making a perfect confession; considered closely the case takes on quite another aspect, for: — 1. It requires the penitent to seek out another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown even when this involves great trouble to the penitent, for as all will concede, the integrity of the confession must be preserved so far as it is possible, and only the damage and hardship to the penitent which makes the con- fession morally impossible excuse from making a complete con- fession. Hence this incommodum must be grave and much greater than that which in the other view allows the defamation of the accomplice. 2. If, however, a man cannot confess to another confessor and is resolved to conceal the sin or its circumstances in order to save his neighbor's reputation, there arises a greater diffi- culty, the obHgation of confessing the same sin again; for in order to save his neighbor's good name a man may only conceal that circumstance which affects the reputation of his neighbor, and this is the unanimous teaching of all theologians; for ex- ample, if a man has committed incest, and has no other means of confessing it, he must mention in his first confession that he has fallen into a sin of impurity, passing over in silence the cir- cumstances which make it incest. He must, however, when opportunity is presented of going to another confessor, mention the circumstance of the incest, and this cannot be done without repeating his former accusation of having fallen into a sin against purity. 3. It is also to be observed that if defamation of one's neighbor excuses from a complete confession, and if in consequence a particular sin may not be revealed (for such is the foundation of 212 THE UECtPlENT OF PENANCE this opinion), the confessor is not allowed to put questions which may cause an indirect revelation of the accompHce, especially to ill-instructed penitents who would have no idea of how to parry the questions. Now if these questions are to be avoided by the confessor, he may not inquire into the occasions of sin, or he must leave to the judgment and discretion of the penitent how far the latter is bound to answer the questions put to him. The consequences, as any one may see, impHcate the direction of penitents in great difficulties, and on that account no one can admit either of these methods of action. Now the confessor, in order to be faithful to his important duty of withdrawing his penitents from the occasions of sin, and in order not to be deceived by a penitent who, left to his own judg- ment, will not reaUze the danger of the occasions, must question his penitent with perfect hberty and undeterred by the fear of ob- taining any knowledge of the accompHce in sin, if it is probable though not certain that such defamation of the accompHce is not a reason dispensing from the integrity of the confession. This opinion is certainly probable. The champions of this view are far from denying that the natural law forbids the injuring of another's good name, but, they niaintain, such injury is forbidden only when there are no reasonable grounds for inflicting it ; it must be proved that the precept of making a complete confession is a sufficient reason, since such defamation to a confessor is certainly not objectively grave. That this ground is a reasonable one is evident from many weighty considerations : — 1. Good reasons have been already offered in the difficulties which are presented when perfect Hberty is not allowed in con- fessing or asking the circumstances and occasions of sins. 2. Further examples may be easily imagined in which the defamation of another resulting from the penitent's confession is not to be considered ; for no one would dream, for example, of releasing a son from the obHgation of making a perfect con- BEASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 213 fession because it might be concluded from the gravity and nature of his sins that his parents had brought him up very badly ; nor would a rehgious be excused for fear his confessor should entertain the suspicion that his superiors were neglecting their duty towards him. For such defamation may well be considered as of httle moment, since the confessor is bound to the most stringent silence and can make absolutely no use of what he hears in confession. 3. Moreover, the precept of making a complete confession is so severe that the penitent may never transgress it in order to safeguard his own good name, and is obliged to overcome the fear of losing it. But, according to the universal teaching, a man is justified in self-defense to do a lawful act even if thereby he injure the character of his neighbor if there is no other way of shielding his own or regaining it when lost ; hence it must be allowable to injure the reputation of another if the end in view is to make a perfect confession ; or the same cause (the integrity of the confession) which binds me to injure my own good name gives me the right of disregarding any infamy that may accrue to others in discharging this duty.^^^ 4. Finally, since it was in early days the practice of confessing to one's parish priest, and he was generally acquainted with all his subjects, the precept of making a complete confession would have had no meaning if the other opinion were tenable in respect to sins which were difficult to confess. Is it possible that Christ should give a command which in practice turned out so nuga- tory ?^^« From what has been already said on this subject it follows 115 Cf . Lugo, Disp. 16, 1. c. ; Tamburini, Meth. conf. 1. 2, c. 9, § 2. 116 Thus Lehnikuhl, 1. c. n. 334 ss. ; cf. Aertiiys, 1. c. u. 196, Q. 10 ; Lugo, L c. Ballerini, however, 1. c. n. 499, Q. I, concludes thus in his notes : Ergo, seclusis aliis mcommodis, Integra manere videtur ohligatio circumstantiam illam tacendi quando ex ejusdeni confessione alterius infamia consequatur. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. L c. {de CompUcis manifestat.) n. 439-450. 214 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE that the confessor, if he thinks fit, is quite at hberty to put ques- tions on the circumstances or occasions of sin; moreover, that penitents ought not to be instructed to conceal circumstances which may injure the reputation of the accompHce with the confessor; they ought rather to be encouraged to make a com- plete confession to their regular confessor if they are unable to find another. If, however, some one acting upon the undoubted authority of theologians who teach the other view wishes to make his confession accordingly, he cannot be blamed if he has formed a dictamen conscientice, and he cannot be forced to renounce his opinion. Again, if a confessor remarks that a penitent is familiar with his theology and makes his accusation in accordance with the other opinion, and if he is satisfied that said penitent is capable of forming a judgment about his obligations, he may more easily omit certain questions and leave the penitent free to follow his own opinion. What has been said with respect to the accompHce's reputa- tion applies equally to those who have been in any way an occa- sion of sin to the penitent. There are cases in which the penitent cannot give the specific character of his sin without at the same time disclosing the sin of another which has been the object or occasion of his own sin. A man, for instance, discovers his un- married sister to be in confinement and maltreats her so that abortus follows ; he cannot explain the nature of his crime fully in the confessional without revealing his sister's sin and so de- stroying her reputation in the mind of the priest. Although some even of those who teach that the integrity of the confession may take precedence of the accomplice's character are unwilHng to grant it in this particular case, yet there is at least a proba- bility that the obUgation of integrity prevails in any case.^^' "■^ Cf . Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 420; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 502; Lehmkiihl 1. c. n. 338. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 215 Article III THE MEANS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT CONFESSION 28. The Examination of Conscience. Since the penitent is obliged to make a complete confession of his mortal sins, as far as lies in his power, there naturally devolves upon him the duty of examining his conscience. Re- garding the examination of conscience the following points are to be noted : — I. The penitent is bound under pain of mortal sin to prepare for confession by a serious and careful examination of con- science, and he must devote to this examination such diligence as a prudent man would ordinarily devote to any important business ; hence in order that the omission of mortal sins in the accusation may not be attributed to sinful neglect, diligentia mediocris, as it is called, or diligentia moralis is required, not such as would make the practice of confession hateful or unduly burdensome. The proof for this is supplied by the Council of Trent,^^^ and it is clear that if mortal sins are to be confessed they must be recalled to the mind. Theologians observe, however, that when a man has examined his conscience with moral diligence, but still believes that further examination would reveal more sins, he is not obliged to spend more time in examining his conscience; otherwise a penitent who had neglected confession for many years would have to examine his conscience for days and still fail to do his duty ; such a conclusion is obviously wrong."^ Sporer ^^^ even goes so far as to teach that a man who has 118 Sess. XIV. cp. 5 et can. 7 (examen diligens). 119 Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, nn. 590-594; cf. Laym. Lib. V. Tr. 6, 8. 120 L. c. n. 366. 216 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE used moral diligence in examining his conscience and has made his confession, and afterwards cannot recall whether he men- tioned or not some particular sin, is not bound to confess it, because the presumption is that he has confessed it along with the other sins. If, however, he have strong misgivings on other grounds and cannot settle his doubt as to whether he has con- fessed the sin or not, he is always obliged to mention that sin, if there is no doubt of its having been committed, in the next confession. II. The care which ought to be employed in this examination is not the same for all classes of penitents; it varies according to the circumstances of the penitents: more especially accord- ing to — (1) the state of conscience and the habitual purity of life ; (2) the time elapsed since the last valid confession ; (3) the education, the knowledge (in religious matters especially), the intelligence of the penitent ; (4) the state of health.^^^ 1. One who seldom falls into mortal sin may satisfy himself with a less strict examination of conscience, especially if he be in the habit of making a daily examination of conscience; for if a penitent of this kind falls into mortal sin, he will immedi- ately recall it; and one who is morally certain that he has not sinned mortally is, strictly speaking, not bound to any examina- tion of conscience, but he must be careful to offer sufficient matter for confession. Though this is quite correct in theory, in practice the penitent is strongly advised to make a careful examination of conscience in order to rid himself of his smaller faults and to reap greater fruit from the Sacrament. 2. The longer the period over which the examination is to ex- tend the more time and care must be expended in this prepa- ration, but it is not to be laid down as a principle that a man who has not confessed for a year is bound to be twelve times as long in his preparation as the man whose last confession was a month before. 121 Mazzotta, 1. c. Disput. I. Q. II. cp. I. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 217 3. Less instructed or quite uneducated people are not obliged to so careful and searching an examination as the better in- structed ; they are quite incapable of examining their conscience, ad impossihilia nemo tenetur. If an educated penitent comes to the Sacrament unprepared, the confessor should with all proper consideration send him away again to prepare himself by a care- ful examination of conscience, unless there should be solid grounds for supposing such a step inopportune; but only grave reasons justify such toleration, for, though the sins committed might be ascertained by questions, there is no moral certainty that such a confession is a perfect one. A penitent who has not been to confession for a long time and is leading a worldly life cannot without preparation answer at once and correctly w^hether he has committed such or such sins. If the penitent is uneducated, or, although educated, yet ignorant in religion, and has taken absolutely no pains to acquire a knowledge of his sins, he must be treated in the same way; if, however, he has taken some pains in the matter, the confessor may supply the defect by questions; for an uneducated man left to himself will, even after a long examination of conscience, never succeed so well as when guided by the prudent questioning of an experienced and skillful confessor who will do the work in a much shorter time. If, then, the confessor sees that he can procure by ques- tioning a perfect confession such as the penitent left to his own resources could hardly make after long examination, he should help him, all the more if there is reason to fear that the peni- tent would be frightened by the postponement of his confession, and might be deterred from confession, at least for a time, by the difficulties attending a careful examination of conscience. This method, the result of great experience, is confirmed by the Catechismus Romanus : ^^^ " If a priest remarks that such peni- tents are quite unprepared, he should dismiss them with very 122 Part II. cp. 5, n. 60. 218 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE gentle words and advise them to come again after spending some time in thinking over their sins. If they maintain that they have already exercised all diligence in examining their con- science, he should hear them, since there is reason to fear that if sent away they might not retm-n, and he may with more rea- son hear their confessions if they show any signs of wishing to reform their life; then they may be urged to accuse themselves of their carelessness and promise for the future to make up for their faults by a careful examination." Renter ^^^ observes on this subject: '^ Besides, experience teaches, as is well remarked by Vasquez and Lugo, that a pru- dent confessor can accomplish more with most penitents and uneducated people by a few questions than they can themselves after a long examination. Hence such penitents when they give any signs of fervor ought not to be easily dismissed in order to examine themselves again, even when defects are noticed." Sporer ^^^ writes : '^ Uneducated and inexperienced penitents are unable to make such an exact examination as the more edu- cated; hence they should be helped by the confessor." Seg- neri,^^^ too, warns the priest not to send away ignorant penitents to make a fresh examination of conscience, unless for the most urgent reasons, since, on the one hand, they may be frightened away and never come to confession again, and, on the other hand, the confessor himself can easily supply for their deficiency by his zeal. Although a penitent knows that he will be questioned by his confessor, he is none the less bound to examine his conscience, since otherwise he would be exposed to the danger of giving wrong and insufficient answers or of omitting a great deal; he may, however, permit himself a little less care, especially with regard to the sins common to people in his state of life.^^^ 123 L. c. n. 311. 124 Theol. Sacram. Tom. III. De Poenit. n. 365. 125 Instructio Poenit. cp. II. i26 Mazzotta, 1. c. ; cf. Suarez, Disp. 22. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 219 No one is bound to write his sins even if he should be afraid of forgetting them; nor, if sin has been committed with an- other, is there any obHgation to consult with the accomplice in sin to determine the number of sins ; so, too, one who has missed Mass the whole year is not bound to count up the feasts in the calendar, for this would be diligentia extraordinaria such as the Council of Trent does not demand/^^ 4. Those who are prostrated by illness and through weakness or pain cannot review their past life are not obliged to make an exact examination of conscience; indeed the confessor should only put to them a few questions according to their condition. If, however, they regain their health, they must supply what was wanting in their accusation; if, after receiving absolution, other mortal sins occur to their mind, they should confess them and get absolution. In general the sick are not required to make so careful an examination as others; hence the priest should not yield when they wish to put off confession from one day to another on the plea of examining their conscience better; usually this is only a pretext for putting off the confession, and does not arise from anxiety or eagerness to prepare well, but from fear; such persons must be prepared by the priest himself for absolution and the other Sacraments/^^ III. A penitent who is guilty of gross neglect in the examina- tion of conscience makes per se an invalid and sacrilegious con- fession; he must, of course, be sufficiently conscious of such neglect in order to incur this sin. The malice of the offense consists in the risk of omitting some mortal sin, and so, though none may have been actually left out, the penitent has sinned gravely by consciously exposing himself to the danger. IV. In order to make a good examination of conscience the penitent should adopt some system; the simplest and easiest method is to go through the commandments of God and of the 127 Mazzotta 1. c; Aertnys, 1. c. De Poenit. cp. III. § 2, n. 186. 128 Aertnys, 1. c. De Poenit. cp. III. art. III. § 2, n. 186. 220 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE Church, the various kinds of sins (especially the Seven Capital Sins), and the nine ways of participating in sin; it is also recom- mended to call to mind particular hours and days. Theologians give many other methods besides for this examination. Renter recommends the penitent to recall where he was each day, what was done, and what sins were committed by thoughts, wishes, and desires, words, and works ; how he has conducted himself at home, in church, with his neighbors; the author considers that by this means repetition will be avoided. To examine the con- science according to this method would be to exercise not only diligentia sufflciens but magna omnino diligentia}^^ Sporer, approv- ing the method recommended by Gobat, offers a compendious system for penitents who lead a fairly uniform existence and for whom the examination of conscience extends over a longer time, some months or half a year. The penitent should consider three periods : (1) an ordinary working-day ; (2) a Sunday; (3) an exceptional day in which he has traveled, done some particular business, been present at a wedding or a dinner, etc.^^^ One who has only to examine a short interval raay call to mind how he has sinned against God, his neighbor, and himself, by thoughts, words, and deeds. V. The following directions are given by approved moralists to determine whether any carelessness in the examination of conscience is a mortal or venial sin and whether in consequence the confession has been valid or not. 1. Those may rest in perfect security who, being neither too strict nor too lax, experience no misgiving or anxiety on the care which they have devoted to the examination of their conscience. 2. If a man doubts whether he has been guilty of more or less carelessness and discovers after confession that he has omitted more sins than he has confessed, he must acknowledge 129 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 844. 1^® Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Poenitentice, Lib. I. P. I. Q. I. art. 9, Praxis examinis pro Confessione, and Lib. I. P. III. Q. III. art. 1 ss. Syllabus peccatorum. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 221 himself guilty of gravely sinful neglect; if, however, he has con- fessed more sins than he has omitted, it may be assumed that he has not been guilty of great carelessness. 3. If a penitent's last confession was made one or two weeks before and he accuses himself of mortal sins, giving the number of times in quite a vague and doubtful fashion, e.g., I have com- mitted sins against holy purity three or four times, there is a strong suspicion that he has been gravely careless in the exami- nation of his conscience/^^ It should be noticed that if a penitent, from experience of his own weakness, is afraid that by a prolonged examination of his sins he will again consent to them, he may confine himself to a rapid glance at them, though he knows that for want of further examination many will be omitted, since in any case the risk of committing sin must be avoided. A confessor must ob- serve the same guardedness in putting questions on sins against the angelic virtue, as we shall see later. If the penitent is troubled with scruples, it is better for him not to go so thoroughly into his examination of conscience, otherwise confession would become too burdensome, and experi- ence shows that such penitents become only more confused, the more they examine themselves ; indeed they should be forbidden any long and anxious attention to themselves. Let the confessor impress upon worrying souls that the great thing for them is to have the wish to confess all, that God recognizes the good will, and that this is shown by praying for grace to make a good examination of conscience, and that even if a sin be forgotten without any fault it is remitted, and that the time between confession and communion should not be occupied with the recalling of one's past sins, but that the mind should be fixed on the future.^^^ 131 Mazzotta, 1. c. Disp. I. Q. II. cp. I (Lacroix) ; Renter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n. 311 ; Sporer, 1. c. ii. 367. 132 Compare Renninger-Gopfert, Pastoraltheologie, I Bd. I Tl. § 66. 222 THE BECIPmNT OF PENANCE 29. Invalid Confessions. Confessions may be either invalid or merely defective. If only defective but not invalid, the defect should be supplied, but there is no need to repeat the confession; if, however, they are invalid, they must be repeated. This repetition need not always be made in the same manner. A confession may be invalid through the fault of the penitent or through that of the confessor. A confession may be invalid through the penitent's fault : — 1. By, a gravely sinful defect in the examination of con- science. 2. By culpable and deliberate concealment of anything which ought to be confessed, or by a gravely sinful lie in confession. 3. By the want of contrition and purpose of amendment; and this defect is to be found among recidivi as well as those who refuse restitution or reconciliation with their enemies. 4. By want of good will to carry out the penance imposed, and to undertake other duties which bind under pain of griev- ous sin, if the good will is wanting at the time of receiving abso- lution. 5. By ignorance of those truths which must be known neces- sitate medii in order to gain salvation. 6. By receiving absolution while still under a sentence of excommunication. Among the principal effects of such a sen- tence must be counted privatio sacramentorum, so that any one receiving the Sacraments in this condition incurs a mortal sin by breaking the law of the Church. One may be saved, how- ever, from grievous sin in this matter by inculpable ignorance, fear of death or mutilation, great disgrace or serious loss of for- tune, etc., as well as by the necessity of obeying the law of yearly confession and communion when there is no priest with faculties for absolving from censures, for the law of the Church is not so severe as to bind its subjects to suffer grievous damage. INVALID CONFESSIONS 223 It is illicit and even sacrilegious for an excommunicated person to receive the Sacraments, though the reception is valid except in the case of the Sacrament of Penance. But when the excommunicated person is in good faith and thinks he may receive absolution, such absolution is valid, it being presumed of course that he goes to confession with the necessary dis- positions. Such a case might occur when, through invincible ignorance or forgetfulness, he omits to mention the censure of excommunication, or when the priest does not know of it or forgets for the moment that such a censure is attached to cer- tain sins, or, again, even where the priest knowingly absolves the penitent, though unprovided with faculties for the case, because the penitent is in one of the cases of necessity men- tioned above and the priest feels it his duty to give absolution, or even if ex malitia he absolves a penitent who believes him to have faculties. ^^^ On the part of the confessor the confession may be made in- valid if he has not the necessary jurisdiction or intention, or if he omits something essential in the formula of absolution, or if through deafness or inattention or the indistinctness of the penitent's utterance he has not understood any sin. If, how- ever, through no fault of the penitent the priest missed some sins, even mortal sins, the confession would, according to the probable opinion, be valid if he heard part of the accusation; those sins, however, which had not been understood ought to be repeated. If in the course of confession the penitent ob- serves that the confessor does not understand because he is asleep or distracted, the penitent must repeat what the priest has failed to hear ; if, in spite of this, the penitent were to con- tinue the confession (mala fide), it would be sinful and invalid and ought to be repeated. If at the end of the confession the penitent sees that the confessor has been sleepy or distracted 133 Cf. Gury-Ballermi, TT. De Censuris, n. 960, Not. 1-4, also n. 430, Q. 7; S. Alph. Lib. VI. 11. 430. in fine; Aertnys, 1. c. De Censuris, n. 39. 224 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and so has missed some of the sins, though he does not know which have been missed, he must begin again unless the ac- cusation has been a long one, in which case it is enough if the penitent repeat what he thinks the confessor may have missed, for it may be presumed that Christ never intended to prescribe perfect confession when attended with such inconvenience/^* With respect to repeating confessions the following principles are accepted : — I. If a confession is invalid, the sins mentioned in it must be repeated; otherwise, the ensuing confession is invalid, for those sins were never remitted by the power of the keys, and in con- sequence they must be again submitted to the tribunal. II. The duty of repeating a confession urges as soon as there is a moral certainty that said confession was null; if, how- ever, the confession has certainly been made and there is doubt only as to its validity, the presumption is in favor of its validity. It is, however, advisable to repeat a doubtfully valid confession. There is no difficulty where the penitent has willfully con- cealed or never intended to give up a mortal sin or never avoided a voluntary occasion of sin, and in other such cases, for the confession was unquestionably invalid and sacrilegious. It is more difficult, however, to determine at times on the validity of a confession when the penitent has frequently re- lapsed without being voluntarily and continually in the occasion of sin. If a penitent shortly after confession falls frequentl}^ into sin on the first occasion that offers, without making any resistance, the presumption is that the confession was deficient in the required contrition and purpose of amendment, and that in consequence it was invalid. If, however, after confession he usually makes some effort, the nullity of the confession is not certain, and the confessor may not force him to repeat the confession, but he will do well to counsel him to do so when his 134 S. Alph. Lib. VI. nil. 498, 409 ; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 607; Suarez, Disp. 28, s. 2, n. 12 (sententia com munis). INVALID CONFESSIONS 225 dispositions improve and he is earnest in his contrition and in his efforts to make a permanent reform.^^^ III. InvaUd confessions must be repeated in their entirety when new confession is made to another priest who has no knowl- edge of the sins contained in the preceding invahd confessions, for this knowledge is necessary in order to pronounce judgment; hence it is not enough for a penitent to accuse himself merely of having made one or more invalid confessions. IV. If the confession is made to a priest who has heard the invalid confessions, and in consequence has already passed sen- tence on the individual sins and has at least a knowledge in confuso of the penitent's state, it is sufficient to summarize the accusation of previously confessed sins in the form, '^I accuse myself of the sins already mentioned in . . . confession," men- tioning if the previous confessions were invalid through want of integrity, and supplying this want by a distinct and separate accusation of the sin or sins omitted. ^^^ The previous confes- sions were sacramental, since they were made with a view to obtain absolution, though deprived of their sacramental efficacy through the fault of the penitent ; hence a general repetition of them in connection with the knowledge which the confessor had of the individual sins may be considered as sufficient to form a judgment. If a penitent wishes to make a general confession, the distinction between the usual confessor and any other is not of so great moment, except where the confessor or the peni- tent is intent upon the minimum necessarium ; the usual confessor of the penitent may, however, be satisfied with less care, since he knows already the previous sins of his penitent. In this case, however, he must have notitiam saltem confusam status poenitentis; for this it is not necessary that he should be able to 125 Cf. §§ 63, 64, where the recidivi are treated of, and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sacr. Poenit. Sect. 11. cp. II. Confessio, art. III. § 2, n. 847. 136 S. Alph. 1. c: n. 502 ; H. A. n. 44; Lacroix, 1. c. n. 216 ; Lngo. Di-p. 16, n. 638 ; Elbel, n. 253, etc. 226 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE recall the number and circumstances of the sins in question : a remembrance of the different species and their number in gen- eral suffices. The confessor will have acquired this notitia confusa from previous confessions and from the questions which he puts to the penitent. Such knowledge is sufficient in so far as it is connected with a knowledge of previous sins, and that will be the case where the general confession is made to the same priest. If, however, the priest can only vaguely call to mind his past treatment of the penitent, he should put some questions to him in order to form an idea of the state of his conscience; but he may absolve without this precaution, if from the penances which he has been in the habit of giving to his penitent he can form a judgment as to the state of his soul.^" The same plan may be adopted^ in the case in which a man after making his confession is sent away without absolution, and afterwards returns to receive it, the confessor in the mean- time retaining no recollection of the sins. ■ Undoubtedly in such a case a notitia confusa is sufficient, and on the strength of it ab- solution may be given. Nay, more : if the penitent's absolution had been delayed for some reason not connected with want of necessary dispositions, the confessor might be satisfied with the remembrance that the penitent was in right dispositions for absolution and had received a penance in proportion to the sin. Of course it is always understood that no fresh mortal sin has been committed in the interval between the confessions; other- wise it must be confessed and a new act of sorrow and resolution of amendment must be made.^^^ On the same principles we may answer the question already discussed as to whether a man who recounts his sins {mere his- torice) to a priest (qua amico) — to obtain advice, for instance 13'^ Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 502, dub. 2 ; also Siiarez, Lugo, Vasquez, Laymann, and other theologians. 13S Suarez, Disp. 22, Sect. 6, and Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 15, n. 636. INVALID CONFESSIONS 22T — is bound to retail them explicitly if in consequence of the priest's advice he desires to receive absolution; or the question might be put thus : What knowledge or recollection of the sins must the priest have so that on the strength of a perfunctory accusation couched in general terms he may give absolution? Many theologians, among them Lacroix and St. Alphonsus, require a distincta memoria of all the sins, because the preceding confession was not made to the priest as a judge in the Sacra- ment, and so cannot be a sacramental confession; but a sac- ramental confession is made only when the confessor has a distincta memoria of the sins narrated at the time when the sum- mary of the accusation is made ; if the priest remembers them only in confuso or ex parte, the penitent must once more make a distinct accusation of his sins in or dine ad ahsolutionem. The opposite view is taught by Lugo, who maintains that it is com- munis, for almost all theologians teach that the memoria confusa is sufficient whatever may have caused the defect in the previous confession. He grants that the mere narration of the sins is in no way sacramental, that no judicial accusation has been made, that it is merely a friendly confidence ; this previous, though not sacramental, narration which still remains memoria non omnino distincta, may become in a certain manner sacramental by the ensuing {summarized) accusation, sufficient for the purposes of the Sacrament; not because the previous narration was sac- ramental in itself, for it was not so, but in so far as the later accusation, joined with the recollection which the confessor has of the sins previously mentioned, supplies the priest with the knowledge necessary for the Sacrament. ^^^ Thus Lugo combats successfully the objections and reasons of his opponents. Still in Lugo's proof and that of his supporters the difficulty must not be overlooked that the narration has no sort of relation 139 Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, nn. 637, 638. Cf. Suarez, De Poenit. Disp. 22, Sect. 6, n. 5 ; Coninck, Disp. 4, n. 45; Illsung, De Poenit. Disp. 6, n. 152, etc. 228 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE to the Sacrament of Penance, either in the mind of the narrator or that of the priest, and that in consequence the reasons brought forward in the case above mentioned are not quite convincing. Aertnys consents to Lugo's decision — that is, he considers the repetition of the accusation as unnecessary only when the con- fessor at the time when the summary of the sins is made has a distincta memoria eorum, since the general accusation of the penitent along with the notitia distincta of the confessor is equivalent to a distincta confessio}^^ And Lehmkuhl regards Lugo's view as quite probable only when the priest is enter- taining hopes as he listens to the narration of getting the man to make a sacramental confession, though such a thought may be very far from the man's mind at the time. The accusation of the penitent may not be intentionally sacramental, while the attention of the priest has already begun to assume a judicial and sacramental form and is inchoative, at least, a distinctly judicial investigation such as w^ould seem sufficient when the penitent on his part gives his consent to carry out the distinct judicial act. If, however, the penitent in the course of his narration never hinted at the idea of a sacramental accusation and the priest never adverted to it, the teaching of St. Alphon- sus would seem to prevail, for in such a case a distincta notitia judicialis never existed, unless a distincta memoria were retained by the priest; but the sacramental sentence which has to be pronounced over every mortal sin is based solely on a judicial knowledge of them.^^^ 30. General Confession. The repetition of former confessions, whether of all the con- fessions of a lifetime or of those last made, is called a general confession. It is necessary for many penitents, useful to others; to a few only it may be said to be harmful. "0 Aertnys, 1. c. art. III. Confessio, § 4, n. 203, Q. 2. 141 Lehmikuhl, 1. c. n. 348. GENERAL CONFESSION 229 1. General confession is necessary for all who have made in- vaUd confessions. St. Alphonsus remarks on this subject that it is a frequent experience in missions that bad confessions have to be set right ; hence he advises missioners that since the good of missions consists mainly in setting right bad confessions, they should in all their discourses be urgent in explaining the heinousness of sacrilege and how many souls are lost by conceal- ing mortal sins in confession. Experience teaches that many people are overcome by false shame so as to conceal their sins even in the confessions which they make to the fathers giving the mission. If at so solemn a time as a mission such people fail to set right their bad confessions, what hope is there of their salvation ? If in the confession which they make to the missioner they cannot overcome their shame, how will they do it when they confess to the local priest? There is indeed good reason for ever and again insisting on the general confession."^ Hence it is very desirable that the local priests at the time of a mission should refrain from hearing confessions, and surrender their con- fessionals to the fathers who give the mission (or to some strange priests called in for the special work of hearing the confessions), for some of the faithful, if they see their usual confessor in attend- ance, may be deterred from going to a strange priest and con- tinue to make sacrilegious confessions. It not unfrequently happens that people whom we would never suspect have most need of freedom in this respect."^ It frequently happens that a confessor thinks a general con- fession necessary when the penitent is not at all convinced of its necessity. ^Vhether the penitent is to be advised in such a 142 Silva, part 3, cp. 6. 143 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. cp. 9. If the confessor is morally certain that the former confessions were bad, he must unquestionably insist on their repe- tition ; if he has only doubts, he cannot impose on the penitent an absolute obligation. In dubio standum est pro valore actus. Cf . S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20; Segneri, Tnstr. poen. cp. 15; Carol. Borom. Act. Med. p. 877; Ben- ger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. II. § 70, S. 470, 2. Auflage. 230 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE case to make a general confession will be determined by the rules which are given as to the duty of instructing the penitent or leaving him to himself (§ 55) ; for if the penitent suspects noth- ing of the nullity of his previous confessions, the confession which he now makes in good faith and proper dispositions is vaHd, and by virtue of it the sins mentioned in former invahd confessions are indirectly remitted and need only be repeated when the conscience awakes to the fact. Moreover, a prudent confessor, if he fails to persuade a penitent of the necessity of a general confession, may succeed by a few questions in making the confession practically a general one. Indeed, unless the penitent takes it in bad part the priest may by a little adroitness ehcit a general confession; then he must, before giving abso- lution, let the penitent know that he has made a general confes- sion. The case may also occur where the penitent has made one or more sacrilegious confessions and, quite forgetful of this circumstance, has begun to make vahd confessions without ever setting right the bad ones; this not unfrequently happens to children. In this case the general confession need only extend over the sacrilegious confessions. ^^^ 2. Of the great usefulness of general confession, popes, saintly bishops, founders of orders, and the great doctors of the Church all speak in most unmistakable terms. The learned Benedict XIV, in his instructions on the preparation of the faithful for a fruitful celebration of the Jubilee, directs priests who give the missions to impress on the people again and again the great profit of general confession. They are to urge them to penance, and to instruct them how to receive the Sacrament vaHdly and profitably; they are to proclaim that it is absolutely necessary to repeat former bad confessions, and they should take all pos- sible pains to excite to a general confession even those who do not feel any necessity for repeating their sins again. ^^For if 1** S. Alph. Praxis Confess, n. 22 ; cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastor, complectens Practicam Institut. Confessarii, P. III. cp. VIII. art. II. n. 245. GENERAL CONFESSION 231 it is not necessary to mention again our former sins, we regard such repetition as very profitable on account of the confusion connected with such avowal, which is an important part of pen- ance, as our predecessor, Benedict XI, teaches in this Decretal Inter Cunctas.^^ He also appeals to St. Charles Borromeo, who in his Monita ad Confessarios proclaims the usefulness of general confession and recommends it. '^Confessors," says the saint, ''ought, with due regard to persons, times, and places, urge their penitents to make a general confession, that thus by a thorough examination of their lives they may turn to God with greater peace of mind and repair all faults which have been committed in former confessions." As another witness for the usefulness of this practice, Benedict XIV adduces St. Francis of Sales who, in many places in his works, insists strongly on the prac- tice. Thus he writes to a widow concerning her father : The counsels which I give him I reduce to two points : the first one is that he should institute a careful examination of his whole life with a view to making a general confession and performing a corresponding penance, — this is a means which no sensible man will despise in presence of death; the other is that he should continually endeavor to wean his mind from the vanities of the world.^^^ Benedict then refers to the rules which St. Vin- cent de Paul gave to his mission-priests, in which he exhorts them to encourage general confessions. In the life of the holy founder it is recorded what great fruits were reaped from the general confessions which were made during the missions held by those priests.^^^ The advantages of general confession are thus briefly enumer- ated by St. Ignatius in his Book of the Exercises : (1) We gain greater fruit and merit on account of the deeper contrition with which we approach the Sacrament; (2) we are better able to reahze the malice of sins committed ; (3) we are in better dispo- 145 S. Franc. Sal. Oper. Ed. Paris 1669. To:n L p. 914, n. 6. 146 Benedict XIV. Const. Apostolica, 26 Jun. 1749, nn. 16, 17. 232 THE BECiPiEjyr of penance sitions for receiving holy communion, and we are more dis- posed to shun sin. Moreover, the Directorium of the Exercises, a work composed by a member of the Society of Jesus and edited by the General Claudius Aquaviva, adds the following observa- tion : If the general confession offered no other advantage, the following fact would sufficiently recommend it; experience proves that men for the most part go to confession either with- out proper examination, or without the required contrition, or with but a weak purpose of amendment ; the general confession comes in most opportunely to give peace of mind, to remove scruples, which sooner or later, or at least at the hour of death, come to torture the soul and expose it to the danger of losing eternal salvation. Segneri also very earnestly recommends general confession. It is a very safe and useful plan to examine one's fife thoroughly at least once, and to set it right by a general confession, and to keep up the practice at fixed intervals of a year, or even oftener, of making a general confession beginning from the last. The advantage of this practice is that, seeing all our faults and sins at a glance, we are filled with greater confusion and sorrow and are impelled to be more humble; besides the fear of God's justice will grow in us when we see our sins, past and present^ hanging like a great mountain over us, so that we are compelled to cry out with Esdras — ''Our sins are grown up even -unto heaven." (Esdr. ix. 6.) And who does not see how difficult it is without such a confession to obtain that most priceless of blessings, peace of mind, at least if the frequent relapses into sin are due to a want of preparation? Oh, how many confessions are thought to be valid and are not so in reality ! ^^^ Finally, the words of St. Alphonsus deserve a place here: ''I advise every one who has not yet done so to confess all the sins which he has ever committed in his life, and I advise not ^^■^ Instruct. pcEnit. cp. 16. GENERAL CONFESSION 233 only those who have made sacrilegious confessions by conceal- ing mortal sins, or whose confessions have been invahd through want of previous examination of conscience or of true contri- tion, but those also who are anxious to begin a new life ; for this purpose a general confession is very useful." ^^^ Hence, general confession is useful : (1) for adults who have not already made one ; (2) especially for such as have reason- able misgivings about the vahdity of past confessions; (3) for those who wish to start a new and better Hfe ; (4) before enter- ing on a new state of life, hence before marriage, before receiving Orders or making the profession in a rehgious community ; (5) at the time of a jubilee or mission, or of the spiritual exercises, for these are special occasions of grace and penance; (6) for persons who are in danger of death, while their strength permits, and for those who have to expose their lives to any danger. Those who have once made a good general confession, espe- cially if they are of mature age, may set their minds at ease on that portion of their existence, and such people should not be easily allowed to repeat their general confession unless for very weighty and exceptional reasons. These frequent repetitions do more harm than good. The desire of repeating the general con- fession is usually a sign of a certain want of trust in God and of scrupulosity. If a penitent of this kind, after his general con- fession, is uneasy about some important point in his former life, because he thinks he has not confessed something or failed to confess it properly, he may be allowed to mention it in one of his ordinary confessions. A repetition of the confession of his whole life may be allowed to a penitent who is free from scruples and is full of zeal to enter on a perfect life. On the other hand, it is well to advise and even to urge as a very useful means the practice of general confession at fixed intervals, say of a year, or a half year, or when the ocea- ns Instit. catech. P. II. cp. 5, n. 11. 234 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sions mentioned above afford an opportunity. If the confessor has to deal with a penitent who has already once or oftener made a general confession, he should ask when the last confession was made and why the penitent is anxious to make it again. The answer will suggest the course to be pursued by the confessor : (a) If the penitent can give no definite reason, but speaks of a general feeling of unrest, the confessor may ask what the cause of this unrest is, and whether in the preceding general confes- sion the penitent has honestly said all he knew and as he knew it, whether he answered the questions put by the priest in all truth, whether he was sorry for his sins, and whether there was a real improvement in his way of living, or, on the other hand, whether he fell again into sin, and when. If a defect is discovered in the preceding general confession it must be repeated ; otherwise the penitent must be shown how groundless his fears are and en- couraged to trust in God. The repetition of the general confession must be strictly forbidden, especiahy in the case of those troubled with scruples. At the most, the accusation of one or other sin which gives most uneasiness may be permitted, and the penitent must be engaged to think no more about the matter, but only to make acts of sorrow when these sins occur to his mind. (b) If, however, the penitent wishes to make a general confes- sion because the last one was made a long time ago, and many mortal sins have been committed in the interval, he should be permitted to make it. The period which has been already com- prised in a general confession may be treated with less detail, or quite omitted. A short repetition is, however, as a rule, rec- ommended since the earlier life of the penitent throws light on his present condition, and he is always more content if the con- fessor has, at least, some general perception of the former state of his soul, (c) If the penitent wishes to make a general confes- sion for ascetic reasons, e.g. for the sake of humility, of greater purity of heart, etc., the question is to be settled as follows : If the penitent is a stranger, he must be referred to his usual con- GENERAL CONFESSION 235 lessor ; if he has none, he must be recommended to choose one. If the penitent asks the confessor to undertake his direction, and on the strength of this to receive his general confession, the request is not to be granted at once. A simple confession may be made so that the priest may decide whether a general confes- sion be necessary to gain the knowledge required for guiding the penitent, or at least useful, or on the contrary harmful where there exists a tendency to scruple. With one's ordinary peni- tents, this procedure is not required in order to find out whether a general confession is or is not advantageous; the ascetical object may be obtained by mentioning some of the more humili- ating sins or by well-prepared annual general confessions. In the special case of penitents who have been living in im- purity the confessor should allow them only one general confes- sion on that period of their lives lest by reflecting on those sins in their examination of conscience sinful promptings should arise in their imagination, the conscience thus incurring fresh stains where the object was to purify it; after one perfect con- fession of these sins the penitent should not be allowed, or rather he should be forbidden, to make any further accusation of them ; a general accusation may, however, be made in subsequent confessions in these or other words of similar form: "I accuse myself of all sins committed against the sixth commandment." Moreover, it is not recommended to advise such penitents to make a general confession till they have combated that vice with success, unless some other pressing need exist for making a general confession.^^^ On .the other hand, the confessor should not omit to advise those who are dangerously ill to make a general confession, or at least a summary of one; he may do this by asking whether anything in their past life gives uneasiness, whether they have always made good confessions and made good acts of contrition, i''9 Cf. Renter, Neo-confessarira, P. III. cp. 2, n. 191 ; Muller, Theol. moral. Lib. III. T. II. § 124. 236 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE whether they have been Uving in proximate occasions of sin, etc.; he will thus have many opportunities of righting at the last moment sacrilegious confessions and communions and res- cuing souls from hell. Since general confession is so .profitable, the confessor may, according to the advice of St. Alphonsus,^^*^ with the exception of the above case, receive penitents who wish to make a general confession of their whole life or of part of it and that at once if they are prepared; he should be most willing to help them in it unless some obstacle, as, for instance, the number of penitents still waiting, or shortness of time, should prevent him from devoting more time to one penitent. He will sometimes find that a general confession which seemed to be only useful turns out to have been necessary. On the other hand, the confessor should refrain from forcing on a penitent a general confession which is not dictated by necessity.^^^ 3. General confession is harmful to scrupulous and even to overanxious people; to such it brings not peace of mind but only more scruples ; hence they should be dissuaded from mak- ing a general confession; it can only be allowed when there is complete certainty of the invalidity of past confessions. '^ Scru- pulous penitents," says St. Alphonsus, ^' would go on making and repeating general confessions forever in the hope of laying aside their anxiety, but the evil only grows, for after every general confession they fall again into new anxieties and scruples, thinking they have omitted some sin or failed to confess it prop- erly, so that their uneasiness increases the oftener they repeat their confessions." ^^^ The confessor, in consequence, must be on his guard against such people and not allow himself to be deceived by them ; he may permit them only to mention some sin which causes them very great trouble, and he must instruct 160 H. A. app. IV. § 1, n. 15. 151 S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20. "2 S. Alph. Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 2, GENERAL CONFESSION 237 them to atone for their defects by an act of sorrow. If, however, the priest is convinced of the invahdity of the former confes- sions of such people, he should help them through their general confession and after that forbid any further examination. Moreover, only an experienced, prudent, and skillful confessor should undertake the direction of such persons, and a young confessor should recommend them to some holy man of greater age. Moreover, the general confession, as we have already mentioned, is a danger to all those for whom reflection on their past sins is a source of new temptations. It is dangerous for those who live in the voluntary and unnecessary occasion of sin and are always relapsing, who are not really in good disposi- tions, and who make a general confession merely with a view of getting absolution more easily; they may be recognized by the sins committed since their last confession, and they may be admitted to a general confession after being exhorted to give up the occasions of sin and to combat their sinful habits. ^^^ St. Leonard of Port Maurice says on this subject: '^If the peni- tent is living in the proximate occasion of sin without making a firm resolution to reform, or without giving signs of contrition, you must give him no encouragement to make a general confes- sion, for the proximate occasion must first be removed and the habit overcome at least for a time. It would else be but labor lost, for general confession is not merely an institution for set- ting right past confessions, but also for reforming one's life. If no purpose of the sort is in the mind of the penitent, there cannot even be a reasonable certainty that he will persevere in his reform, and there is no foundation upon which to build up virtue. Exhort him, and suggest means for avoiding the occa- sions of evil and for overcoming sin; show him the utter im- possibility of reform unless the occasions are given up, or, if this cannot be, unless they are made remote; urge him to pray 153 Marc, Tnstit. Morales, II. T. II. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. n. 1712. 238 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and put off the general confession to another time. Only on quite special occasions, e.g. missions, or where there are extraor- dinary signs of penitence may any fruit be expected from the general confessions of those who live in occasions of sin and show no signs of improvement." ^^^ The practice of many confessors is to be deprecated, who, after hearing one or two confessions of a penitent, urge him to make a general confession, moved by imprudent zeal or in order to obtain better knowledge for the guidance of the penitent. Equally reprehensible is the conduct of many priests who give way to their penitents, allowing them to make often a general confession, or, at least, whenever they choose a new confessor. Such general confessions are quite useless and are a mere waste of time.^^^ 31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession. As to the method of hearing general confessions, the following rules, the outcome of the long experience of learned confessors, should be observed : — 1. In order to be fit for this office a confessor should be well instructed and already experienced in hearing confessions; he must have great patience and zeal for souls, and during the whole course of the confession be very sympathetic and encour- aging towards the penitent. 2. If a penitent expresses his desire to make a general confes- sion, the priest should first inquire whether it be necessary or useful. In order to discover this it is not recommended to ask the penitent bluntly if he has ever concealed a sin in his former confessions, or any question of the kind, for it is quite possible that the penitent, though guilty of the sin, may in his bewilder- ment deny it and never again dare to confess it; it is much 154 Anleitung zur Geiieralbeichte, S. 90-92. 165 Qf. Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confess. 1. c. art. II. ii. 247. MANNER OF EEABING GENERAL CONFESSION 239 better if the confessor ask the penitent why he wishes to make a general confession, whether he feels uneasy, etc. By such questions or the like he may try to discover if there have been sacrilegious confessions. He will often receive one or other of the following answers : (a) ^^ Because I have kept sins back ; " he will then encourage his penitent, showing himself very kind towards him and urging him to be perfectly sincere, (h) "1 have never yet made a general confession; " he may then find out if it be necessary or only useful, (c) " I have made a general confession before, but it was not a good one." He may then ask why the last general confession was not a good one; if the penitent can give no other reason, except his own fears, there is a fair presumption that he has to deal with an overanxious or scrupulous penitent, (d) "1 heard in a sermon that my con- fessions were bad;" here again the reason must be asked. (e) The following reason may also be given especially during a mission: '^I want to begin a better life;" in such a case the general confession will be at least very useful. 3. If the general confession is necessary in consequence of former confessions having been sacrilegious or invalid, it must be made with great accuracy and the number and species must be given, so far as possible, just as though the sins had never been confessed before. It may easily happen, however, that the confessor, though convinced of the necessity of a general confession, cannot at once hear it for want of time or on account of the great number of penitents kept waiting; while the peni- tent frequently cannot return again and is quite uninstructed or of weak intellect, or is really anxious to receive absolution or must receive it in order to fulfill the obligation of going to communion. In such a case, and especially when the penitent discloses at once to his confessor that his previous confessions have been bad by reason of not giving the number of the sins, and when the confessor can, from the account of sins committed in the past year, form a fair estimate of the past life of the sin- 240 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ner, St. Alphonsus recommends that absolution should be given without any repetition of previous confessions. He assumes that the confessor is able to form a gross estimate as to the whole life from what he hears concerning one year, and that he further inquires whether the penitent, besides his ordinary sins, is conscious of any special ones in the course of his life. The detailed general confession may be put off to some more oppor- tune occasion which can be arranged at orice with the penitent. The holy Doctor adds another instance to those just mentioned — when the confessor after hearing the confession discovers that the penitent has failed in former confessions to give the number of his sins and when, at the same time, he has a distinda notitia of the sins and can form upon them a distinctum judicium on the past career of the penitent; if, however, he have only a notitia confusa of the sins confessed, he is obliged to form a notitia distinda of the former mortal sins imperfectly confessed. With only a notitia confusa of the penitent's previous condition he may not give absolution, for the penitent is obliged to confess each single sin once, and the confessor is obliged to pronounce once a distinct judgment on the sins.^^® In the case, however, where the general confession is not of necessity, these precautions in putting questions need not be adopted; if the concourse of penitents is very large, and if, as frequently occurs, in missions or on similar occasions the general confession cannot be put off to a more convenient time, the confessor may at least make a summary examination, asking only for the species of the sins and the time of duration of the habits of sin without laying stress on the exact number and circumstances of each particular sin. The priest must, of course, give the penitent sufficient time to unburden his conscience and to say all he wants to accuse himself of, even though such accusation be not necessary in this voluntary general confession, so that the penitent may 156 S. Alph. Lib. Vr. n. 504; cf. Lugo 1. c. Disput. 16, iin. 600, 640; Ben- ger, Pci^toraltheologie, IL Bd. § 171, S. 479 (2. Aufl.). MANNER OF HEARING GENERAL CONFESSION 241 leave the confessional with his mind quite at ease ; thus he may ask him in general: ''Do you accuse yourself of all sinful thoughts, words, etc.?" On this account it is recommended to impress upon the penitent that in a voluntary general confes- sion he is not bound to accuse himself of each particular sin; indeed this instruction is very useful, for a penitent may, in the course of his confession, incur sacrilege through false shame and an erroneous conscience by keeping back a sin which he imagines he is obliged to tell in general confession. It is an invariable rule to avoid too great haste or abruptness, otherwise the penitent is not put at his ease; hence it not infrequently happens that a penitent accuses himself of not having said all he wanted to say because the priest had been too quick. "The greatest difficulty in general confessions," says Blessed Leonard of Port Maurice, ''is the accusation of the number of sins." To meet this the following rules will be of service: — (a) If the confessor can get at the precise number of sins, he is obHged to do so. (5) If the penitent cannot give the exact number, he must be asked to give about the number, as near as possible. For this purpose the priest will suggest numbers, and if the peni- tent choose the largest number, a still larger one may be sug- gested to see if the penitent will accuse himself also of that. (c) In the case of frequently recurring sins or habits of sin it is necessary to find out whether they have been of daily, weekly, or monthly occurrence. As to which of these periods will apply to the penitent depends on his state as learnt from his last con- fession, and on the nature of the sin itself. In mentioning the period the confessor should always add a number, e.g. how often each week, three, four, or five times? and as we said under (b), the whole time during which the sin or habit of sin lasted must be found out. Finally it is useful in order to ascer- tain the state of the penitent's soul to find out whether there has at any time been improvement and how long it lasted. 242 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE (d) It is the sententia communis and the teaching of St. Al- phonsus that by one and the same internal and external act a number of sins may be committed, when, for instance, the object aimed at in the sin includes several ends. A man, for instance, spreads a calumny about a community, — by so doing he in- curs as many sins as there are persons in the community; this occurs usually in cases of enmity, scandal, etc. When, there- fore, there is a diversitas ohjectorum totalium, questions must be put concerning the number of these objects. {e) In putting questions as to the number and species of the sin, care must be taken not to bewilder the penitent with ques- tions ; if two or three questions do not effect the desired result, no more need be put ; for St. Alphonsus teaches : The priest, who, after two or three questions, fails to obtain any definite result, need not worry even if he cannot come to any clear deci- sion, nam ex conscientiis implicatis et confusis moraliter impos- sihile est major em daritatem sperare}^'^ In conclusion, St. Leonard ^^^ remarks : If the confessor cannot get at the exact or probable number, or even the more frequent repetitions, it is in my opinion sufficient to find out the evil habit and the time of its duration. By this means the confessor, so far as is possible, will gain an idea of the state of his penitent and be able to form a judgment about him. The greater or less frequency of repetition must not, however, in- volve other consequences, as in the case of stealing. Here great care must be used to find out the number of the sins and, in particular, the value of the sum stolen. 4. If the general confession is a voluntary one and the peni- tent unprepared, it is not advisable to receive it, but to give the penitent some days to prepare by examining his conscience, making acts of contrition, and praying with more than usual fervor, — a method which will insure greater fruit in the general 1^'^ Praxis Confess, cp. T. ii. 20, 4. 1^8 Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 64-70. MANNER OF HEARING GENERAL CONFESSION 243 confession. At the same time the confessor might show the penitent that a general confession is not such a difficult matter once it is undertaken courageously. If, however, the penitent will be prevented from returning to the priest to whom he wishes to make his general confession, the confession may be made at once. If the general confession is one of necessity, there is all the more reason for a good preparation. If, however, as fre- quently happens, there is reason to fear that the penitent will not return, the confessor should not send him away to make his preparation, but receive the confession at once. As to the preparation required on the part of the penitent, especially with regard to the examination of conscience, the confessor will be careful not to exact a written accusation; such a process, as a rule, only causes confusion and adds to the burdens of the confessor. If the penitent is afraid of not being able to retain in his memory the results of his examination of conscience, he may confine himself to a quiet examination accord- ing to his powers, and the confessor will help him. It may be permitted to the penitent to make notes of the more necessary points. If the confession is voluntary, the confessor may take the notes and read them for himself ; if it be a general confes- sion of necessity, the penitent himself should read them. 5. It is not per se required that a penitent declare first the sins committed since the last confession before repeating his former confessions, nor is he obliged to make a distinction between the sins committed since the last confession and those told in former confessions, since the sin is the same whether confessed or not, and it makes no difference that the former sins have been remitted because the sin is not the object of confes- sion in so far as it is habitual or leaves enduring stain, but in so far as it has been actually committed. ^^^ Still it is recommended to make the general confession precede the particular confession 159 S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 425, H. A. n. 4; Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, nn. 46- 49 ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 200, Q. 2. M4: THE UECIPIENT OF PENANCE of the sins committed since the last time, in order that the priest may better ascertain the state of his penitent and assure himself that there is no obstacle to his giving absolution. 6. If the penitent is a well-instructed person and prepared, and is really desirous of confessing, the priest may allow him first to make his confession, and then he can put any questions that may be necessary, for many persons feel the need to reveal what is on their mind and have no peace until they do it. If, however, the penitent is persuaded that confession consists in the priest putting questions and the penitent answering, or if he wishes to make his confession in this manner, the confessor may adopt this mode. With ignorant penitents it is recom- mended and is indeed preferable. The confessor must then give the penitent time and opportunity to mention anything that disturbs his peace of mind. 7. If the confessor receives a general confession by way of question and answer, he must adopt some method, going through the Ten Commandments, the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and the duties of the state of life. For the sake of greater clearness and to avoid repetitions he might indeed bring all sins under the Ten Commandments, those even which are against the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and other varieties of sins, for the Deca- logue, as the Roman Catechism teaches, is the sum of all the Commandments. It is not, however, recommended to divide the confession into parts answering to the different periods of one's life, for such a practice protracts the confession and involves many burdensome repetitions; still in the case of the sixth Commandment it has its advantages, and questions might be put as to sins committed before marriage, during the married state, and after the death of the other party. Finally penitents who can be questioned as to the actus consummati should be asked according to the PLAN FOR 31 AKIN G A GENERAL CONFESSION 245 different species of the act as well as on the actios imperfecti, interna] and external, with regard to the species. 8. The priest should not omit to exhort the penitent to ac- knowledge honestly his sins, and not to conceal from false shame anything which he is obliged to tell/^^ The confessor should never give any sign of astonishment or anger, no matter how numerous or atrocious the sins may be. Let him show rather that he would not be surprised at hearing even worse sins; let him come to the help of the penitent and even praise him for ha\dng succeeded in confessing some one or other of the more difficult sins. He may congratulate the penitent on winning a victory over himself and the devil, and encourage him again to complete candor and to make the confession as perfect as though it were to be the last of his life. 32. Plan for making a General Confession. In this paragraph we present a plan of questions suitable for a general confession and offer it especially for the guidance of younger confessors. A few preliminary remarks, however, are necessary to secure clearness. This plan need not contain all the sins which are treated of in moral theology, but only such as may or do actually occur. Nevertheless, if a confessor adhere to this schedule in his ques- tions he may be quite satisfied as to the integrity of the con- fession. Such a schedule should be as short as possible so that the con- fessor may easily retain it in his head; hence the subdivisions, which he should know from his moral theology, may be omitted. Since in a general confession venial sins ought not to be lost sight of on account of their close connection with mortal sins and because they are of great moment in determining the state of 1^0 P. Heilig, Methodus Confess, generales . . . excipiendi ; Gury-Baller. 1. c. IT. Tract, de Sacr. Poenit. n. 519; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. IT. art. III. nn. 346, 349 ; Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confessor. P. III. cp. YIII. art. III. 246 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the penitent's soul, some of the more serious venial sins will find a place in the catalogue. The confessor should know, in addition, how a sin in itself and objectively venial may become mortal per accidens, and, on the other hand, how a sin grave ex genere suo may per accidens become venial/*^^ Moreover, the priest should be careful not to examine all penitents on every sin; a single question to which a negative answer is given will show that a whole series of other questions may be omitted, and thus he will only inquire after those sins which are likely to have been committed. In putting his ques- tions he should pay due regard both to the physical and the spiritual condition of the penitent. From sins already confessed an indication may easily be drawn as to the further inquiries to be made, and while he omits many questions in the catalogue he may deem it advisable to add others. If he discovers in the penitent a habit of sin, he must inquire how long it lasted, when it began, and when it was broken off. In all his questions he will observe the rules which hold on this subject in every confession; ^^^ in particular he should bear in mind the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice : ^^ Treat your penitent," he says, ^^as you would like to be treated yourself if you were in the same painful situation ; receive him in a friendly manner and with affectionate kindness; encourage him to have confidence in you and to open his heart ,to you. Re- frain from harsh and blunt forms of address which serve rather to irritate and, embitter the penitent than to make him docile, obedient, and phant ; and even when he is gross and ignorant, rebelhous to all advice and unwilling to fulfill his duties, do not, on that account, treat him harshly or frighten him by a dis- play of overbearing rigor. Remember that in the confessional you must be a martyr of patience, seeking always to win the penitent by the gentleness of your manners, and that your duty 161 See § 24. "2 See § 49. PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 247 is to incline rather to mildness than strictness. If your words are to have the power of gentle persuasiveness, you must deal with him in the spirit of our holy faith, and he will become humble and convinced of the truth of your words." ^^^ If the penitent is not already well known to the confessor, the latter must by a few questions at the beginning of the con- fession inform himself as to the age, position, calling, and other circumstances of his penitent since such knowledge is necessary for the choice and arrangement of the questions to be put. If in the course of the confession some question must be asked on some rarely occurring and horrible sin, it should be pleaded by way of excuse that a special advantage of a general confes- sion is to secure a thorough examination of conscience; and that this explains the unusual questions. If during the confession the discovery is made that the peni- tent lies under some special obligation to avoid occasions of sin, to make restitution or some such burden, he should be told of it and disposed for it at once without waiting for the end of the confession for fear of forgetting it or of giving a wrong judg- ment. All other directions, however, in the way of advice or instruction should only be given at the end for fear of annoying and repelling the penitent, and also in order to avoid prolixity and repetition. If on general principles the absolution ought to be put off and the penitent fails to show necessary disposi- tions by signs of extraordinary sorrow and penitence, the con- fession should be interrupted and not resumed till a decided improvement is seen. If the penitent is judged to be in good dispositions, the confession may go on after the promise of per- forming the necessary obligations has been exacted, and the penitent should be reminded that if he is not sincerely deter- mined to stand by his promises, his trouble is all in vain and his confession invalid, and that he is putting a seal on his con- 16^ Aiileitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 88-90. 248 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE demnation by a new offense against God. In longer confessions it is a good practice even during the accusation (especially if some particularly grave sin be mentioned) to remind the peni- tent of the greatness of his crimes, of God's goodness and grace by which he has been freed from all these great sins, and then to encourage him to make a thoroughly good confession. The penitent should also be reminded of all his bad confessions and communions, of his neglect of his Easter duties, etc. If it be observed that the penitent is unusually disturbed, the cause of it should be found out; if it be the avowal of some one sin, the confessor should seek to obtain some hint about it and then push the questions so that the penitent has only to answer yes or no; thus a penitent may be consoled who is troubled because he has not sufficiently examined himself, or cannot ex- press his meaning correctly or has forgotten what he wished to say. If no definite cause can be assigned, the confessor should encourage him in a general way, telling him that the confession is made to God, reminding him of the sacredness of the seal, recalling to him that the priest is also but a man, subject to faults and weaknesses; impressing upon him that the priest is ordained in order to sympathize with others, to help them by his kindness and patience, etc. Furthermore the way of begin- ning a general confession depends on the circumstances of the penitent, and these must be inquired into at once.^^^ Having laid down these principles we enter into details : — I. Preliminary Questions. 1. The penitent should be asked his age, his condition of life, and his calling. 2. Then he may be asked if his previous confessions have been valid (the uninstructed should be assisted to form a correct ^^* Leonard von Port Maur., Anleitung zur Generalbeichte ; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. 1\\. S. 607-619 (1. Aufl.), Bd. 11. S. 475-486 (■2. Aufl.) ; Schiich, Pastoraltheologie, § 320. PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 249 judgment in the matter), whether he has ever intentionally con- cealed a grave sin or a notable circumstance in confession — given intentionally the wrong number of his sins — examined his conscience carefully — tried to be really contrite at least for all graver sins. Then he may be asked if he has always faith- fully performed the penance imposed. If the confessor discovers any sacrilegious confessions, he must at once ascertain their num- ber as closely as possible, asking when the first bad confession was made, how long the habit lasted, whether any of them were set right, how often the penitent in this condition was accus- tomed to confess or communicate, whether the Easter duties were neglected by reason of such confessions and communions, whether in making such confessions and communions the peni- tent was conscious of committing sacrilege; whether during that period other Sacraments were received such as Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction. If the penitent is persuaded that his confessions were not sacrilegious, but some grounds of suspicion remain, the confessor might on occasion of some accusation against the sixth Commandment, make inquiry if the sin has been confessed before; or he might even ask plainly, "You have never yet confessed this sin?" or, "You have never had the courage to confess this sin?" II. Sins against the Sixth and Ninth and the Other Commandments . ^^^ The confessor may next, in order to learn the general state of the penitent, ask quite generally: "Were you ever led astray when young? at what age? Did you indulge in a-ny impure habits ? " If the priest discovers that the penitent is quite inno- cent of such sins, he should go on at once to the other Command- ^^5 Some experienced confessors advise to begin with these commandments, because sins against holy purity are frequently the cause of invalid confes- sions. Many penitents, however, would be shocked and disgusted at such a proceeding. 250 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ments. He might perhaps ask further: ''Were you troubled with temptations against holy purity? Had you to listen to bad conversation ? Has any one ever taken liberties with you ? " Sins of luxuria consummata may be reduced to four species, vollutio, fornicatio, sodomia, and hestialitas. These species have their actus imperfectos, external, for instance tactus, and internal, namely, delectatio morosa and desideria, and in addition may have three circumstances which change the nature of the sin, adulteriwn, incestus, sacrilegium. The questions may be mod- eled on these four species, and in the case of each sin the cir- cumstances inquired into which affect the species of the sin. Any compendium of Moral Theology will suggest the necessary detail/«« He may add : " Have you confessed all the sins you have committed against holy purity? Does anything else disturb your mind with regard to the sixth Commandment? Perhaps you can manage now to make a general confession and to set in order your past life." Against the First Commandment. 1. Against Faith. The confessor may ask whether the peni- tent has been troubled by doubts against faith, or really doubted of the truths of faith and suggested such doubts to others; whether he has denied any truth of faith-; whether he has acted or spoken against faith and before how many persons ; whether he has induced others to jeer or mock at faith; has he spoken against religion and priests? has he listened to speeches of others directed against faith and applauded or encouraged 166 The greatest prudence should be employed in putting these questions for fear of teaching evil or giving scandal. In this matter it is better that the completeness of the accusation should suffer. For instance, Ballerini disapproves of asking directly whether the accomplice is bound by vows, since such cases are rare, and when they occur the penitent would be cer- tain to mention the circumstance spontaneously, while to put such a ques- tion would frequently cause astonishment and give scandal. PLAN FOB MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 251 them? has he read, sold, given or recommended to others the reading of books and articles against faith? has he himself written for such publications ? has he frequented the society of men who mocked at religion or were enemies of the faith? has he taken part in the religious services of non-Catholics? has he joined any society which is hostile to religion? 2. Against Hope. Has he doubted of his salvation or of God's mercy? or of the possibility of reforming? has he pre- sumed on God's mercy and put off his conversion ? 3. Against Charity. Has he under stress of suffering hated God? indulged feelings of indifference or resentment against God and holy things? has he murmured against God in his sufferings and crosses ? has he banished God from his mind for long periods, neglected prayer ? 4. Against the Reverence due to God. Has he believed in su- perstitious practices and employed them? has he used sacred objects without reverence or for wrong purposes? has he re- ceived any of the Sacraments (Penance, Holy Communion, Con- firmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction) unworthily? has he desecrated holy places? has he injured persons consecrated to God? Against the Second Commandment. Has he blasphemed? before children? Has he a habit of swearing? Has he ever sworn to what was false, or to any- thing of which he w^as doubtful? in a court of justice? to the injury of others? Has he been accustomed to use rash oaths? Against the Third Commandment and the Commandments of the Church. Has he by his own fault missed Mass on Sundays and holi- days of obligation? has he absented himself by his own fault from a considerable portion of the services ? Has his behavior during the services been irreverent and scandalous? Has he done servile work without necessity on Sundays or holidays of 252 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE obligation? for how long? before others? or has he required such work from others? Has he broken the law of fasting without cause, or eaten meat on forbidden days without a dis- pensation ? Has he neglected his Easter duties ? Against the Fourth Commandment. Are the parents still living ? Has he dehberately offended them by frequent disobedience in matters of moment {e.g. frequent- ing certain company against their will, staying late in public houses, by not giving up bad companions, by neglecting reli- gious duties or important business at home) ? Has he despised them in his heart? treated them with contempt or given them great trouble ? used harsh and contemptuous language to them ? wished them harm seriously? in the presence of others? Has he been ashamed of them? neglected them in their necessities, treated them badly, not carried out their last wishes ? Servants, etc., should be asked whether they are faithful to their master's services: have they offended him by contempt or rudeness? damaged his reputation with his neighbors? obeyed him in things forbidden? Have they given scandal to others in the house, particularly children ? Masters, etc., should be asked whether they take due care of those under them. Have they treated them unjustly? per- mitted evil practices? have they kept their servants to the practice of their religious duties and given them time for it? have they given their servants bad example or led them into sin? Parents and Superiors should be asked if they take proper care of their charges, or have squandered the family property. Do they correct and punish the children with prudence and without anger? have they ever wished evil to befall them? Do they watch over their children, keeping them from bad com- panions, from sinful connections? Have they instructed the PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 253 children in their rehgious duties? have they sent their children to irreligious schools? Have they given their children bad ex- ample ? Have they said or done anything sinful in presence of the children ? Married people should be asked if they live together in peace ? have their quarrels given scandal to the children ? Against the Fifth Commandment. Has the penitent let himself be carried away by anger? broken out into curses or wished grave damage to betide his neighbor? Has he rejoiced in his neighbor's misfortunes, enter- tained hatred, and inflicted harm or intended to inflict it ? Has he fostered enmities or refused to make satisfaction to those whom he has injured? Has he lived in enmity with others, with how many and for how long? Has he promised to make peace and kept his promise? Has he ever seriously damaged his health or attempted his life, or seriously thought of doing so ? Has he been in the habit of drinking, and been quite overcome by drink ? Has this been the occasion of quarrels or other sins ? Is it a habit ? Has he neglected his duties to his wife and chil- dren in consequence, or ill treated them and destroyed the peace of the family? (The confessor must not forget his studies on occasio and consuetudo when dealing with cases of this sort.) It might also be well to ask if the penitent has been hard in dealing with the poor in their grave needs and refused assist- ance. Against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments. Has he entertained desires of stealing or of cheating his neigh- bor ? Has he actually committed theft, or cheated his neighbor in doing business? Has he inflicted losses on any one? Has he paid his debts or put off for a long time the paying of them ? Has he made restitution and repaired the losses inflicted? Is he at least willing to make reparation ? If not, why not ? 254 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE Against the Eighth Commandment. Has he told lies to the grave injury of his neighbor? Has he ever given false witness in a court of justice? Has he ever be- trayed an important secret? Has he ever injured the reputa- tion of his neighbor by revealing his faults without sufficient reason ? to how many people was this communication made ? Has he ever falsely accused his neighbor of a fault? to how many people? Did he restore the good name of the injured person? and did he make good to him the losses resulting from the calumny? Has he made rash judgments in things of great moment, and has he communicated them to others ? With respect to the Seven Capital Sins the confessor may ask: — ' Has the penitent behaved in a proud, overbearing manner towards others ? Has he devoted himself to inordinate amassing of wealth and coveted the same? Has he omitted to give the alms which he ought? Has he helped his neighbor when he ought ? Has he indulged in envy of his neighbor on account of his fortune, his wealth, his graces, his virtues, etc. ? Has he rejoiced in his neighbor's misfortune, caused it or wished it? Has he neglected his work and duties through idleness, and injured his neighbor thereby? With regard to the nine ways of participating in the sin of another the confessor might ask: Has he boasted of his sins? which? Has he advised others to commit sin, or praised the sin of others, or commanded others to sin? Has he failed to prevent the sins of others when he could do so easily ? After the priest has put all the questions which he thinks necessary he should proceed to advise the penitent to reflect if there is anything else disturbing his conscience about which no questions have been put; and he should also remind him that this confession may be his last. He may then try to move the penitent to contrition and to a firm purpose of amendment by PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 255 the consideration of some effectual motives presented in a kind and fatherly manner. He might conclude with some words to this purpose : — " Now thank God with all your heart for the great mercy He has shown you ; if death had overtaken you while you were bur- dened with so many grave sins, you would certainly be at the present moment in hell, but now make your mind quite easy and don't worry any more about these sins; I am now going to absolve you in God's name from them all and your soul will be as pure as when it came from the baptismal font ; but beware of sinning again and do not return God's mercy with ingratitude." The confessor will then give the penitent some directions how to reform his life; he must point out one or other of his sins that should be especially combated; and if at the same time he shows an interest in the penitent and promises to pray for him, the latter will go away consoled and encouraged to begin a new life in the Lord.^®' 167 Aertnys, 1. c. cp. 8, art. 4, nn. 251, 252 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 351 ; Gury-Balleriiii, 1. c. n. 520; Heilig, Methodus Conf. gen. n. 10 ss. CHAPTER IV SATISFACTION 33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor. There is no question here of satisfaction in the wider sense which includes the restitution to be made for the infliction of spiritual or temporal loss. The subject which we propose to treat of is satisfaction in its restricted meaning {satisf actio) . It consists in the performance of those works of penance which according to the Council of Trent ^^^ are designed to preserve the new life acquired in the Sacrament, to repair the languor which remains as a relic of past sin, and at the same time to serve as a punishment for sin. As after the recovery from a severe ill- ness the body is weakened, so after a spiritual cure the soul retains a weakness and an incHnation to fall back into sin ; more- over, as the Church teaches, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment does not always include the remission of all tempo- ral punishment. The penance is imposed with a view of remov- ing the last traces of weakness and of paying the 'debt of temporal punishment; under its first aspect it is called poena medicinalis, under the second, poena vindicativa. This satisfaction is partly sacramental, partly extra-sacra- mental. The sacramental portion consists in the works which the confessor imposes in virtue of the power of the keys; the extra-sacramental in the works freely undertaken by the peni- tent, as well as in the patient submission to the sufferings and crosses of this life. We are dealing at present with sacramental 168 Sess. XIV. De Poeiiit. cp. 8. 256 IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 257 satisfaction, which is an integral part of the Sacrament, as it is immediately connected with the power of the keys, and which is more efficacious as atonement in consequence of the applica- tion of the merits of Jesus Christ/^^ Both confessor and penitent have obhgations with respect to this satisfaction. We will first consider the duty of the con- fessor in the matter. I. The confessor is bound to impose some penance on every penitent who receives absolution and who is capable of doing penance. The tradition of the Fathers, the constant practice of the Church, and the express declaration of the Council of Trent agree in maintaining that the penance is an integral part of the Sacrament. The text of the Council ^^^ runs as follows: '^It is therefore the duty of priests to impose, as reason and pru- dence may suggest, wholesome and appropriate penances with due regard for the nature of the sin and the strength of the penitent, lest, by being indulgent towards sin and treating the penitent too tenderly in giving the very lightest penance for grave sins they become themselves participators in the sins of others. Let them keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose is designed not only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity but also to punish and destroy past sin; for the power of the keys was given not only to loose but also to bind." The confessor must impose a penance not only when mortal sins, but also when venial sins, or mortal sins already absolved, are confessed. As often as absolution is given a pen- 1^® S. Thorn. Amplius valet ad expiandum peccatum quam si propria arhitrio homo faceret idem opus. Quodl. Lib. 3, Q. 14. Summa Theol. Supplem. Q. 12-15; Siiarez, De Sacr. Poeiiit. Disp. 37 per 10 Sectiones, Disp. 38, Sect. 1 and 2 ; Lugo, De Sacr. Poenit. Disp. 24 per 5 Sectiones ; Billuart, Compend. Theol. Tom. VI. De Sacr. Poenit. Diss. VIII. a. I. 6-8; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. Vol. V. Tract. X. Sect V. cp. I. n. 478 ss. ; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakrainenten, II. Tl. § 42, Die Genugthumig, S. 538 ss. I'o Sess. XIV. cp. 8. 258 THE liECIFIEJSIT OF PENANCE ance must be imposed — (a) because the penance belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, (h) that the penitent may not be deprived of the sacramental fruits of satisfaction, (c) that justice and right may be done. II. This duty of imposing a penance urges per se sub peccato mortali when there is question of mortal sins not yet remitted by the power of the keys; where the matter is only venial sin or materia libera, the obligation is binding only sub levi. Hence a priest sins mortally by failing to give a penance to a penitent who confesses sins not yet directly forgiven; in the case of a penitent who presents only materia libera, the confessor sins venially (probabiliter) ob parvitatem materia'. III. At times there may be no sin in failing to give a penance. This can happen : — (a) When absolution is given to a penitent in articulo mortis, especially if he be unconscious. St. Alphonsus, however, recom- mends, and laudably, that even a dying penitent should receive some light and easy penance, if there be time to do it and the penitent can perform it, e.g. to kiss the crucifix, to pronounce the names of Jesus and Mary, or to make at least an internal act of love in order that the Sacrament may have its due comple- ment and the dying person gain some fruit from the sacramental satisfaction. The confessor might himself help the penitent by reciting the prayers for him, holding the crucifix to him; this will also be a means of comforting and consoling the dying man.^^^ (b) If a perplexed or scrupulous penitent returns frequently to confess sins that he had forgotten, and if nearly every time there is reason for giving absolution, the confessor satisfies his obligations by again imposing the previous penance without adding another or by prescribing it as sufficient for all the sins mentioned in confession. ^^^ 171 S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VT. nn. 506, 507; H. Ap. n. 47. i'2 Busenbaum, Medulla, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. cp. I. De Satisfact. Art. T; S. Alph. Lib. VI. u. 513; Lugo, Disp. 25, u. 50. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 259 IV. The confessor is bound to give a suitable and wholesome penance, punitive as well as medicinal, proportioned to the num- ber and gravity of the sins and adapted to the individual peni- tent. This is the express teaching of the Council of Trent.^'^ The choice of the penance is not left to the caprice of the con- fessor. Special directions are laid down for him by the Church, and these he must follow suh gravi. The Council draws a dis- tinction between poence vindicativce and medicinales , and the confessor has to inflict these in his capacity of judge and healer of souls. But to avoid misunderstanding it must be borne in mind that the whole power and authority of inflicting penances or of bincUng the faithful is vested in the confessor as judge. As physician the great object of the" confessor must be to heal the wounds of the soul and to provide against relapses, but here he can only insist on the necessary means, and that simply because he expresses what the penitent is bound to do already by natural and divine law. The case is quite different when we regard the confessor as judge; in this capacity he has power to punish and Mnd the penitent. In the choice of the works of penance which he im- poses in his quality of judge, he may use his knowledge as physi- cian, and it is a course to be commended if he imposes such penances as will help to salvation, heal the spiritual maladies and safeguard the penitent against relapses.^^^ In this way the confessor falls in with the prescriptions of the Council by giv- ing penances which are in part punitive, in part medicinal ; they are punitive if in any way they oppose our sensuahty or our pride; and they are medicinal when they are of a kind to cut away the causes 'and roots of sin, to mortify our irregular incli- nations, to strengthen the will, to remove occasions of sin, to save us from relapses and to confirm us in virtue. In accord- ance with the maxim "contraria contrariis curantur^' those good i-^s Sess. XIY. cp. 8. i"4 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. TT. cp. TTT. Satisf actio, n. 355. 260 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE works are generally prescribed which are directly contrary to the sins committed, hence the prescription of the Roman ritual to impose as penances almsgiving upon the avaricious, fasting or other bodily mortifications upon the sensual, humiliating works upon the proud, exercises of devotion for the tepid/ ^^ All works of satisfaction or penance may be reduced to the three heads of Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds. Under prayer, for instance, may be grouped all works of piety and devotion, par- ticularly everything that may be understood as related to the knowledge of God; more frequent prayer, daily examination of conscience, daily Mass, meditation (especially on the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and the four last things), spiritual reading, more frequent? confession, frequent repetition of acts of the theological virtues, thought of the presence of God, devo- tion to our Blessed Lady — all of which are irksome and con- trary to our corrupt nature and partake in consequence of the nature of a penance. Under the head of fasting may be in- cluded not only abstention from meat and drink, but every kind of mortification, hence the denial of even lawful pleasures, early rising in the morning, the cutting down of little comforts, kneel- ing at prayer, etc. And under almsgiving we may comprise all works of corporal and spiritual mercy. These three classes of good works correspond to the three roots of sin, — the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of Hfe; for fasting is directed against the concupiscence of the flesh, almsgiving against the concu- piscence of the eyes, and prayer against the pride of hfe.^^^ Even purely interior acts (opera mere interiora) may be im- posed: some theologians contradict this statement on the plea that human authority is not empowered to enjoin such acts, but here the question is not about human authority but of divine power given to men.^^^ '"5 Rituale Rom. De Sacrain. Poenit. i"^ S. Thorn. Suppl. Q. 15, a. 3. ^'^'^ S. Alph. cum communi sentenda. Lib. VI. 1. c. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 261 The confessor may also give as a penance works to be done for the souls in purgatory, for though this satisfaction in se is directed to the benefit of the holy souls it is a good work, and by its union with the Sacrament has power ex opere operato to les- sen the temporal debt of the penitent/^^ Indeed the confessor may impose as penance some good work which has already been started, not precisely as a good work but so far as it expresses under the new circumstances obedi- ence, humility, and the denial of one's own will. It may be observed, however, what St. Alphonsus remarks, that it is rarely advisable to impose such a penance even with another good work attached. A work which one is already bound to do may be imposed as a penance since it may be ex natura sua satisfactory and is capa- ble of acquiring a greater satisfactory effect ; but such work can be considered as a sacramental penance only when the confessor has expressly declared so, nor is it advisable that such works should be so imposed, unless indeed there exist some urgent reason for it on the part of the penitent, — his weakness, for ex- ample. If such work {aliunde debitum) be imposed, its omission is a double sin.^^^ A penance may be given to be performed in case of a relapse, according to the opinion of eminent theologians such as Suarez, Laymann, and St. Alphonsus Liguori; so that if the condition be fulfilled, i.e. if the sinner relapse, the penance must be carried out. A confessor giving only a penance of that kind would be very far from satisfying his obligations.^®^ A public penance, i.e., a penance to be done before others, of such a nature that bystanders could infer that the penitent had incurred grave sin, cannot be imposed by a confessor for secret sins, for such an infliction would be an indirect violation of the 1^8 S. Alph. ibid.; Scavini, 1. c. n. 383; S. Thorn. Quodl. 3, a. 28. 1'^ This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus cum innumeris scriptoribus contra naucos (n. 513). iso S. Alph. 1. c. n. 524. 262 THE BECIPIENT OF FENANCE seal, and besides it is expressly forbidden by the Roman Ritual. For public sins a public penance may be inflicted, and the Coun- cil of Trent insists upon it as a way of repairing scandal. Here there is no breach of the seal, for it is question of notorious sin. The confessor should only insist, however, on a public penance when he is convinced of the necessity of that step for repairing scandal. If the confessor feels called upon to impose such a penance, and the penitent declines to do it, absolution cannot be given. In general, any scandal given may be set right by an evident reform in the life of the penitent, if, for instance, he approach the Sacraments more frequently, visit the Church, hear Mass, join a sodality, etc.^^^ Moreover, not everything done in the presence of others, which the penitent could easily undertake of his own free will, need be regarded as a public penance. It need be no matter of anxiety to the confessor if the penitent reveals to others that such or such a practice is a penance imposed by the priest. Finally the confessor must carefully avoid enjoining any practices which are needlessly repugnant to the penitent and which there is reason to fear he will shirk. For instance, tell- ing the children to beg pardon of their parents, or the penitent to pray in the Church w^ith the arms stretched out in the form of a cross. Lehmkuhl justly remarks that such penances are a clear sign of a confessor's want of prudence and may give occa- sion to many sacrileges. *^^ There is left a large choice for the confessor in the matter of penances. He is bound, however, by the prescriptions of the Council of Trent to impose works of penance quantum spiritus et prudentia suggesserit, but also to consider the qualitas criminum and the facultas pcenitentium. Thus he must bear in mind the gravity of the sin and the condition of the penitent; in this way a prudent mean may be kept between too great mildness 181 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 512. i82 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 356 (8). IMPOSITION OF PE^'^ANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 263 and excessive strictness. The priest should avoid being too easy, for fear, as the Council says, of participating in the guilt of others and sacrificing God's cause to an indulgence which may be easily attributed to human respect or other unworthy causes. To avoid this danger the Roman Catechism recom- mends the study of the old penitential canons where each sin has its own fixed punishment. It is true that the discipline has been altered since then but its spirit remains, and the zeal of the priest for the cause of his Lord should be no less fervent than that of the first ages of the Church. On the other hand, how- ever, undue rigor is to be avoided. The strictness should not be founded on self-love, prejudice, ostentation, nor on a natu- rally stern temperament, nor on want of common sense, etc., otherwise the penitent may be driven to despair, and souls lost instead of being won. The tribunal of penance should resemble as closely as possible God's owm tribunal, and as God is not only just but merciful, so the priest should never separate these two attributes. It is often a good thing to let the penitent know that he has deserved a severer penance, but that the ever gentle spirit of the Church imposes only a light one, leaving the peni- tent free to undertake other w^orks of satisfaction if his zeal prompt him thereto. It is matter of experience that penances extended over too long a period do not always succeed in their object, for since they are frequently not performed they may easily prove a snare to the penitent instead of being a help. If the priest is in doubt whether to adopt a strict or a mild line of conduct in any particular case, he may recall the beautiful words of St. John Chrysostom : ^^^ " Is it not easier to render an account of excessive mercy than of excessive severity ? Can the steward be close-handed where the master is so liberal? If, then, God is so good why should His minister be severe? If your object is to pose as a saint, be austere towards yourself and mild towards others." ''' 183 Homil. 43 in Matth. c. 23. is* cf. Martin, Moral. S. 591. 264 THE RECIPIENT OF PENAN CE V. For mortal sin a poenitentia simpliciter gravis should be given, for venial sin a poenitentia levis; and a confessor would sin gravely if without sufficient reason he should impose for mortal sin a poenitentia in se levis, for he would neither punish the sin nor give his penitent the means of salvation. In the. case of sins doubtfully mortal, whether considered subjectively or objectively, he is not obliged to impose a severe penance/^'^ Whatever in the present discipline of the Church is imposed suh gravi is considered as materia gravis for a penance. The following, for instance: five decades of the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints with the accompanying prayers; while as materia levis are reckoned : one psalm (of moderate length) , the Litany of Loretto, five Our Fathers and five Hail Mary's, etc. Any prayer corresponding in length to a little hour of the Breviary counts for materia levis, for though the omission of one of these little hours is a mortal sin, this is not in virtue of the prayer itself, but because the recitation of the Breviary is a public and official act and done in the name of the whole Church. If the penitent has committed many mortal sins, the penance can hardly be increased in a strict proportion. In this case the imposition of a penance corresponding to one mortal sin is not sufficient unless special reasons exist for not giving a heavier penalty. VI. There are many reasons for which a confessor may be justified in giving a smaller penance than is due to the number and gravity of the sins, and this diminution may be absolute as well as relative. For instance : — 1. A penitent is prostrated by a severe illness and unable to perform a longer penance. The priest should exhort him to offer up his sufferings as satisfaction for his sins, and if the sins have been very grave the priest ought to be willing to take upon himself part of the penance. ^^"^ 185 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 516, H. A. n. 55; Sporer, 1. c. n. 588. 180 Cf. Kit. Roman, tit. III. cp. I. n. 25. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 265 2. When there is extraordinary sorrow. This in se is suffi- cient reason for diminishing the penance, for the greater such sorrow the greater is the remission of temporal punishment. On the other hand, such a penitent is wilhng to accept a very severe penance; and if we read of certain holy men imposing only a slight penance, we must remember that they either made up for it in their own person or induced the penitent to practice of his own free will some austerity. 3. A confessor may see that his penitent is very weak spiritu- ally and not willing to carry out a severe penance, although he may have no doubt as to his contrition and resolution of amend- ment. Such a case may call for the expedient of adding to a small penance some other practices which the penitent must fulfill on other accounts, e.g. to hear Mass on Sunday, etc., and the confessor would do well to choose such practices as the penitent has been in the habit of neglecting.^" We will now mention the occasions in which a confessor may impose a penance in accordance, indeed, with the Church's precepts as to materia gravis, but less than what seems propor- tioned to the number and gravity of the sins : — 1. When there is great, though not quite extraordinary, con- trition. 2. On the occasion of a jubilee or some other plenary indul- gence ; but to refrain for such a reason from giving any penance at all would be quite wrong and against the distinct declaration of Benedict XIV, Constit. " Inter prceteritos.^^ 3. When there is fear that the penitent, through spiritual weakness, may fail to perform the penance which would cor- respond to his sins. 4. When there is hope that a smaller penance will induce the penitent to receive the Sacraments oftener and with greater spiritual benefit; indeed, this seems to be the chief reason why 18" S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513. 260 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the Church has tempered in our days the severity of her peni- tential disciphne. 5. When the confessor intends to do the penance which he beheves he dare not lay upon his penitent, as, for instance, when St. Francis Xavier disciplined himself to satisfy for the sins of his penitents. The sufficiency of this vicarious penance rests on the Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints. On the other hand, the proposition that a penitent can, of his own authority, appoint another to do the penance for him has been condemned by Alexander VII. 6. When there is hope of inducing the penitent by means of a smaller penance to do other good works on his own account. 7. When the penitent has already done penance and is in the habit of practicing good works. It is, however, always recommended to tell the penitent that the penance is very much less than he deserves. ^^^ VII. For venial sins or materia libera the confessor may im- pose a heavy or a light penance but not sub gravi; but if he imposes a light penance for mortal sin such penance may bind only sub levi, but the very fact of imposing a heavy penance for mortal sin means that the obligation is sub gravi, unless he ex- pressly declares his intention of not so binding.^^^ In treating the question of the obligation on the penitent of carrying out the penance and the intention of the confessor in the matter, we must keep in mind the parallel instances of the binding force of laws. The legislator cannot bind the conscience sub gravi in a matter which, regarded objectively, is of small moment; while grave matter when prescribed ex gravi causa induces a strict obligation per se, though the legislator may have the power only to enforce it under pain of venial sin. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus with the sententia communior ^88 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 509, 510, 526 ; H. Ap. nn. 49, 50; Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, n. 60; Renter, 1. c. p. 4, nn. 591, 404; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1, c. nn. 489, 493. i8« S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 517, 518. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 267 et valde prohahilis as regards the obligation of laws and the law- giver. When, then, the confessor imposes a penance, he is at the same time passing a law which must be obeyed. Many theologians deny that the confessor can impose for mortal sin a heavy penance only sub levi because he is simply God's minister, and in consequence must act in accordance with the institution of the Sacrament without attempting to diminish its rigor/^^ On the other hand, the sententia communior et valde prohabilis gives the confessor the right because, though he is the vicar of God, he is appointed by Christ as actual judge and legislator who, in virtue of his powers, looses by forgiving sin and binds by imposing penance; so that the obligation of the penance is not a consequence of the Sacrament but of the pre- cept of the confessor/^^ Still the confessor would not be justi- fied in practically disregarding the first opinion, for, as St. Alphonsus teaches, he must obey the Council of Trent in its decision that ordinarily a grave opus is to be imposed sub gravi even though the penance be slight in comparison to the number and heinousness of the sins. The opinion may, however, be used in this way. The confessor, after giving a severe penance sub gravi, may add a still more severe penance sub levi; if this latter be fulfilled by the penitent, he makes full sacramental satisfaction; if he neglect it, there is at least no great respon- sibility. St. Alphonsus notices that this is a very good way of dealing with weak penitents, for all good works have a satis- factory power and a weak penitent is thus not exposed to occa- sion of grave sin; at the same time what Aertnys observes is also to be borne in mind, namely, that in our days, owing to the decay of fervor, such a method is seldom to be recommended.^^^ The confessor may give the penance immediately after the 1^'^ Thus, among others, Lugo. 1^1 Thus, among others, Suarez, Fillince, Segneri, St. Alphon. 1. c, n. 518. 192 Aertnys, Theol. Moral. Lib. YL Tract. V. De Poenit. cp. III. art. IV. n. 206, Q. 4. 268 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE absolution, but it is more correct to give it beforehand, as that is the custom in the Church, and the proper order of justice requires that the penitent should show himself disposed to under- take his penance before absolution is given/^^ In concluding this article we give a list of penances which may be imposed according to the principles already given : — Attendance at holy Mass, the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross (these should not be given to people who are not accus- tomed to the devotions, and in regard to the Stations of the Cross, the embarrassment that many experience in performing public devotions should be taken into account), the Seven Peni- tential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, the Litany of Loretto or some other litany, the Prayer to the Five Wounds, to com- mend one's self to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary morning and evening while reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, to say every day a certain number (not too many) of short prayers — e.g. to say the Hail Mary three times morning and evening (St. Alphonsus used to give his penitents this penance, adding the invocation ^^My Mother, preserve me from offending God this day," and when the penitents were not accustomed to this form of devotion he used at least to recommend it), to ex- amine the conscience daily and to excite acts of contrition, to read some short extracts from a pious book approved by the confessor, such as the Imitation of Christ, to make a meditation, or after reading carefully some subject such as the Four Last Things or the Sufferings of Christ to reflect upon it for a short while, to devote a short time every day to eliciting acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to hear sermons, to receive the Sac- raments on certain fixed days, to renew the resolutions made at the last confession, not thoughtlessly but with all earnest- ness, and to hold to them steadfastly now in honor of the Sacred Heart, at another time in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and again 198S. Alph. 1. c. n. 514 (in fine). IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 269 in honor of some one among the saints with a petition for their help, to make some ferA^ent ejaculation every time the clock strikes (when the confessor gives this or similar practices as a penance he might remind the penitents to make up the number of times missed if by chance they forget it). Fasting (though this should be very seldom given and then only with great caution) or an occasional mortification at meal time; to refrain from some particular dish, or from wine or other intoxicating liquor, either for a fixed period or a certain number of times; still more prudence is to be exercised in imposing other bodily mortifications — indeed they should be permitted only with great reserve — praying with arms extended (unseen, of course, by others), to pray on bended knees, to rise at a fixed hour in the morning, to avoid unprofitable conversation, etc., to give alms, to visit the poor and the sick, to help them, and to do lowly offices for them, etc.^^^ ^ATiich of these penances should be imposed is a matter de- pending on the sins and disposition of the penitent. The choice of penance is an affair of considerable moment with regard to the well-being and reformation of the penitent, and it is a neg- lect of dut}^ to impose on every occasion without distinction the recital of a prayer. In addition, the confessor should observe the wholesome advice which has been given by men distinguished alike for sanctity and learning. St. Antoninus wTites : ^^^ '' The priest should give such a pen- ance as he thinks the penitent will perform. If a man, after accusing himself of grave sin, declares that he cannot do a severe penance, the confessor must reason with him, pointing out the gravity of his offenses and the severe punishments he has de- served, and after that give him some penance such as he can be persuaded to undertake; and if the priest does not obtain per- ^^* Gurv-Ballerini, 1. c. Appendix, n. 535. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 200; Lehmkiihl, 1. c. u. 368. i95 Suninia Theol. P. III. tit 17, s. 20. 270 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE feet suecess, he may rejoice, at least, that he has rescued a soul from hell if not from purgatory; hence, on no account, should he send a penitent away in despair or discouragement. It is better to give him a Pater Noster or some other slight penance and make the good works which he does or his sufferings supply for the rest. A man who shows real sorrow and is ready to do all that he ought, but declares that a heavy penance is beyond him should never, no matter how he may have sinned, be sent away without absolution lest he fall into despair." St. Charles Borromeo recommends the confessor to impose such penance as he thinks the man will do ; hence he may occa- sionally ask the penitent if he can perform the penance given; and if the latter expresses his doubts about fulfilHng it, the con- fessor may change the penance or make it easier. ^^^ The saint also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, who warns the confessor not to burden his penitents with heavy penances,^^^ for as a smouldering fire may be put out by heaping too much fuel upon it, so the feeble contrition which has only just been excited in the heart of the penitent may be crushed out by a severe penance, and despair may be the consequence. Hence it is better to point out to the penitent what a big penance he deserves and to give him a smaller one such as he will be ready to fulfill, by which he will accustom himself to the bigger one which the confessor would not have ventured to impose. Finally St. Alphonsus ^^^ may be heard on this subject : ''How imprudent is the conduct of those priests who give penances which they foresee will never be done. Oh, how many ignorant confessors there are who thoughtlessly absolve penitents living in the proximate occasion of sin or in bad dispositions; and yet such confessors are persuaded for some incomprehensible reason that they are ministering to the health of souls by imposing heavy penances. The result is that the penitents, having agreed 106 Instruct. Confess, cp. 20. ^^' Qiiodl. 8, a. 28 ; cf. Opusc. 65, § 4. 198 Lib. VI. 11. 510. ACCEPTANCE OF PENANCE BY THE PENITENT 271 to the penance for fear of being refused absolution, relapse again, after a short time, because they were never taught to adopt any safeguards against sin, omit the penance, and, terrified by its severity, keep away from the Sacrament so as to spend a great portion of their lives in sin." 34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent. I. The penitent is obhged to accept wilhngly the penance imposed and to perform it exactly ; for as the duty devolves on the priest of securing the integrity of the Sacrament by giving the penance, the penitent is, in turn, bound to accept it and carry it out. The duty is of strict obhgation ex genere suo, so that the peni- tent would sin gravely by omitting a grave penance imposed suh gravi, or a considerable portion of it. We have already seen what is to be considered grave in this matter. ^^^ II. The penitent is obhged to perform the penance enjoined by the confessor, but no limit of time is determined within which it must be done. An unreasonably long delay, however, might easily become a grave matter. To determine how far delay may involve grave sin we must take into consideration whether time is a substantial element in the penance. For example : (1) whether the confessor has fixed a day and of set purpose, for the appointing of a day does not always imply a fixed intention on the confessor's part; indeed, generally speaking, it is not a mortal sin to postpone a fast appointed for Friday to the following Saturday.^"^ (2) If some work has been prescribed to be done within a given time after the confession, and it is the intention of the confessor that there should be no interruption, its omission, even for one day if it amount to a materia gravis, may be a mortal sin, unless 199 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 517. 200 §_ Alph. 1. c. n. 521. 272 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE the confessor has given leave to substitute one day for another or where his consent to a change may be fairly presumed. (3) If the postponement of the work imposed reduced the penance to little or nothing, as, for example, if the confessor enjoined on the penitent to approach the Sacraments in a week and the penitent put it off for a month ; to delay the weekly commimion for a day or two or the monthly commmiion to a period not longer than a week would, apart from other considerations, amount only to a venial sin.^^^ There is no mortal sin in putting off the penance even for a considerable time as long as the time fixed for its performance is not a substantial part of the work imposed. A delay of six months would, according to St. Alphonsus, certainly constitute a mortal sin; the great factor in determining the gravity of the offense will be the danger of forgetting the penance or of being unable to carry it out.^^^ If a penance is enjoined which has to be performed daily for a considerable period, and which is also a work prescribed by the commandments of the Church, it may be presumed that the confessor never intended a double performance of the work un- less he expressly declared such an intention. On the other hand, if it is enjoined once or twice or even oftener without indicating any special day, the penitent cannot satisfy the double obHga- tion by the one act ; for example, a man who is told to hear Mass three times cannot satisfy by making one of the Masses the Sunday Mass of obHgation, unless this be expressly granted by his confessor, nor would he fulfill his duty by hearing three Masses simultaneously, because such would never be the inten- tion of the confessor. If, however, a man is enjoined to hear Mass daily, he is not obliged to hear two Masses on Sundays.^^^ 201 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 521 ; H. A. n. 57 ; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. V. cp. 2. 202 Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, Sect. 5, n. 92 ; Sanchez in decalog. \, 4, c. 10, n. 21 ; Elbel, de Poenit. n. 229. 203 Mazzotta, 1. c. ; Gury XL n. 535 ; S. Alph. H. A. n. 57. ACCEPTANCE OF PENANCE BY THE PENITENT 273 If the penitent has certain prayers to say for his penance, they may be recited during a Mass of obhgation, for the two duties may be fulfilled at the same time unless the confessor rule it otherwise. It is a useful and excellent practice to remind the penitent that he may say his penance during the time of Mass, especially if his circumstances be such that he can hardly com- mand other available time.^*^^ If the penitent fails to perform his penance within the pre- scribed time, he is not on that account freed from the obligation of accomplishing it ; for the confessor intends first the penance, then the time-limit, and the latter is fixed non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam ohligationem. Even when the penitent has fallen into mortal sin, he may still perform his penance and so satisfy his obhgation in that matter, but he does not obtain the fruits of satisfaction. When the penitent does what he has been told he fulfills substantially his duty; the manner or mode of fulfihing it (namely, in the state of grace) does not come under the command. By the fact, however, of not being in the state of grace his works cannot be de condigno satisfactory, and so cannot merit for him the release from temporal punishment. It is certain that no new mortal sin is contracted by a penitent who performs his penance in a state of mortal sin, though, according to a probable opinion sup- ported by St. Alphonsus,^"^ there is a venial sin in consequence of the hindrance offered to the effects of the Sacrament. Some theologians ^"^ also teach that when such a penitent regains the state of grace {ohice remoto) the penance effects satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment ex opere operato, and this doc- trine is valde pwhahilis. In addition to the sacramental satisfaction the penitent should 204 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 364. 205 Lib. VI. n. 523. 206 Suarez, De Poen. Disp. 38, s. 8, n. 5 ; Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, s. 3, n. 39 ; Laymann, Theol. Mor. Lib. V. Tract. VI. cp. 15, n. 15; Lacroix, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1215, and many others. 274 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE undertake some penance on his own initiative, especially where that enjoined by the priest is small with regard to the gravity of the sin. This extra-sacramental satisfaction will be supple- mented by the prayer in which the Church, in virtue of the merits of Christ and His saints, confers on extra-sacramental works the power of reducing the debt of temporal punishment. 35. The Commutation of the Penance. If, for some good reason, the penitent discovers that the pen- ance is too severe, he should mention the circumstance to his confessor that he may change it ; and if the penitent has under- taken a penance which later on presents great difficulties in its fulfilment, he should consult some priest equipped with the neces- sary powers for a commutation. But there should be a good reason, and not mere weakness, sensuahty, or laziness, which usually counsel avoidance of all severity and self-conquest or sacrifice for God and the good of one's soul. Self-love and self-indulgence easily persuade us that what is difficult is impossible, and we have seen that the very aim of penance is to punish in the strict sense of the word ; it ought to be both a chastisement and a means of salvation. If the penitent • shrinks from the penance and asks for a mitigation, the confessor should in all kindness consider the motive and act accordingly. If he can find no sufficient reason but only a pre- text of self-love and self-indulgence, he must tell the penitent so and endeavor to persuade him to undertake the penance, otherwise absolution cannot be given. ^Vhen the petition is reasonable the penance may be changed. A reasonable penance cannot be declined by the penitent without his incurring thereby grave sin, for when once he has submitted his case to the confessor he ought to abide by the latter's decision, since the law of God requires that the con- fessor should inflict a suitable penance and that the penitent THE COMMUTATION OF THE PENANCE 275 should accept it.^°' There is, however, a great difference between refusing a penance and asking for its mitigation. Under no circumstances may the penitent himself change the penance, even for a work objectively more perfect, for the sacramental satisfaction must be imposed by the minister of the Sacrament, and the penitent has no right to annul or commute on his own authority the sentence pronounced by the judge. If, now, the penitent is convinced on sufficient grounds that the penance is exorbitant and he cannot persuade the confessor to make it easier, he is at hberty to go away without absolution and present his case to another priest, repeating, of course, his confession.^"^ If, however, his grounds are defective, he may easily incur a venial sin by such procedure.^^^ A really well-dis- posed penitent, therefore, will hardly incur grave sin if, conscious of his weakness, he objects to a penance as too hard and seeks absolution from another confessor, so long, of course, as he does not seek out one who is known for his criminal laxity. If a man after absolution finds the penance too difficult of performance, he may get it changed either by the same priest or by another. This commutation can be made only in confession, in virtue of the absolution which has been already given or is to be given, for it is only the absolution by which an effect ex opere operato can be produced in the penitent, and it is the absolution which gives the satisfactory efficacy ex opere operato to the penance which has been or is to be imposed.^^" Hence the confessor immediately after the absolution can certainly change the penance because, morally speaking, the 207 Mazzotta, 1. c. Q. 5 ; cf . 2 Suarez, 1. c. Disp. 38, s. 7. Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, n. 68, says that this doctrine is verum et certum, and is a direct conse- quence of the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. cp. 8) ; cf. Elbel, 1. c. n. 227. 208 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 515, 516 ; Mazzotta, 1. c. 209 Lugo, 1. c. n. 77. 210 Lugo, De Poenit. Disp. 25, nn. 107-110. Cf. Disp. 15, n. 107. 276 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE judicial action is still in progress. Though some theologians extend this power (of changing the penance in virtue of the ab- solution imparted) over two or three days, the preference is to be given to the opinion of St. Alphonsus,^^^ who restricts the period to the time immediately after the absolution, for, as a matter of fact, the judicium sacramentale is then completed. If, however, the penitent and confessor are of the other opinion, which is not devoid of extrinsic probabihty, they may act upon it, since it is not a question of an essential part of the Sacrament; if there were question of the essence of the Sacrament, an injury w^ould be done both to the Sacrament and its recipient by following a doubtful opinion. ^^^ Any other priest can commute the penance only in virtue of a new absolution which he himself gives. The question now arises whether the penitent ought to repeat his confession with a view to obtain another penance. If he applies to the same confessor, he is certainly not obliged if the latter retain some notion m confuso of the penitent's conscience; if the penitent goes to another priest, according to an opinion considered as probable by Laymann, Lugo, Sporer, he is ex- empt from the obhgation of repeating his confession, because it is not upon the sins that judgment is to be passed, but upon the reasons for changing the penance, whether, for instance, the penitent is unable to perform it or whether the penance itself is too severe. Moreover, the confessor may follow this method with a safe conscience, though it is more advisable for him to adopt the practice advocated by other theologians, notably Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, and Lacroix, of get- ting the penitent to give at least an outline of the previous con- fession in order to have an approximate knowledge of the state of his soul.^^^ 211 L. c. n. 529, dub. III. 212 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 366. 218 S. Alph. 1. c. 11. 529, dub. I; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 213, Q. I; Muller, 1. c. §128. THE COMMUTATION OF THE PENANCE 277 The view held by many theologians is also probable, that when a confessor sees that a penance has not been performed by a penitent, and that no likelihood exists of its performance^ he may commute it for something else, though unasked by the penitent. When, however, a penance has been inflicted for some reserved sin by a constitutional Superior, no inferior may commute it, for authority in such cases is withdrawn from the inferior tri- bunal. Exception is made where the penitent would have great difficulty in approaching the Superior and when urgent reasons call for a commutation. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus and some other theologians against the supporters of the stricter doctrine.^" There still remains the question what the penitent is to do when he has forgotten the penance. According to the common, and perhaps also the more probable, opinion, he is not obliged to repeat the confession of even the graver sins, and the duty of performing the penance simply lapses (ad impossibile enim nemo tenetur) ; nor is there any obligation to confess again sins already directly remitted with a view of securing the integrity of the Sacrament, for that would be a grievous burden. If, however, the penitent thinks that the confessor remembers the penance, and he can reach him without difficulty, he is, as theologians rightly affirm, obhged to ask his confessor to give him his pen- ance, for there is no grave impediment in this case to the per- formance of the penance. ^^^ In this connection we must note that: 1. When a man for- gets the penance enjoined, and has a conviction that the penance was a certain work, he is bound to do that work, for whoever is certain about his obhgation is obliged to do what is probably of obhgation if he cannot fulfill what is certainly of obligation.^^^ 214 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 529, dub. II; H. A. n. 61. 215 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 520 ; H. A. n. 59. 216 H. A. Tr. 6, n. 33, in fine. 278 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 2. When a penitent confesses that he has not performed the penance but has said the prayers prescribed out of devotion without thinking of the penance, he has satisfied his obhgation, and the confessor cannot insist on the performance of another penance; for a man is supposed to do first that to which he is bound.^^^ 217 S. Alph. H. A. n. 58 ; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 700, Q. 2. Paet III THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT In the preceding chapters which dealt with the actus poeni- tentis, we have aheady had occasion to consider the office of the minister of the Sacrament. The functions of the confessor con- sist mainly in absolving according to the intention of Christ. In treating of this important and difficult subject, w^e shall fol- low the most approved theologians, distinguished alike for learning and sanctity, so as to avoid on the one hand an exten- sive mildness and on the other a severity fatal to the salvation of souls. Section I THE POWERS OF THE CONFESSOR 36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation. 1. The proper minister of the Sacrament of Penance is the priest. Penance being a Sacrament, it is self-evident on Catholic principles that its minister must have the sacerdotal character, the power of Orders {potestas ordinis) . This power springs from the priestly character and consists in the capacity of valide per- forming the sacred rites instituted by Christ, so that they are an efficacious means of grace.^ The Sacrament of Penance is, moreover, in its dispensation essentially judicial. The minister of the Sacrament is judge over the soul ; hence he must have in addition to Holy Orders the power of spiritual jurisdiction {potestas jurisdictionis) . 1 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. I. n. 369. 279 280 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Thus for a valid absolution there are required both potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis. Jurisdiction in general is public authority in its completest sense, and thus includes the power of directing subjects. In its more restricted sense it is the power of judging right and wrong and of pronouncing sentence. It answers perfectly to the power exercised in the Sacrament of Penance (in foro interno). Hence jurisdiction in foro sacramentali is the power by which a priest can pronounce sentence on those subject to him by remitting or retaining sins. What, then, is the relation existing between the potestas ordinis and the potestas jurisdictionis f The priestly character conveys no jurisdiction with it; it may exist without any jurisdiction.^ 2. It is a peculiarity of this potestas ordinis that the exercise of it without the Church's commission is not illicit only, but invalid. Hence, while in the other Sacraments jurisdiction is extrinsic to the exercise of power and only regulates it, in the Sacrament of Penance the jurisdiction is an intrinsic condition, because the exercise of the power of this Sacrament is essentially a judicial act and involving jurisdiction. 3. Jurisdiction, though not conveyed by Orders, is derived from God, but through the hands of the Church, i.e. by delega- tion from those who are invested with that jurisdiction. Hence all priests besides the Pope, who receives it immediately from God, owe their jurisdiction to the Church; thus priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishops, the bishops from the Pope. 4. We may, therefore, say that the potestas ordinis renders its subject capable of jurisdiction in foro interno, and of confer- ring the Sacrament after jurisdiction has been given, so that the potestas ordinis is the disposition for administering the Sac- rament of Penance.^ Thus it is not so much that the power of remitting sins judicially is given to the priest in his ordination 2 Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 7. s Suarez, Disp. 16, s. 3. OBBERS, JURISDICTION, APPROBATION 281 as rather this, that the ordained person, when he is appointed judge by proper authority to take cognizance of sins, is enabled to remit these sins sacramentally ; in other words, he receives power to remit sins by a special grace. From the preceding it follows: (1) that the doctrine which teaches that jurisdiction is conveyed by ordination merely is false; (2) that it is also false to teach that ordination confers ipso facto jurisdiction, but that the Chiu"ch can restrain its ex- ercise and that in granting jurisdiction she does no more than remove her own prohibition ; (3) that it is the same thing to say : the Church confers jurisdiction to a priest, as to say, the Church assigns in foro interno certain subjects to the priest; (4) that one may say, the potestas ordinis which is acquired by the char- acter of the priesthood is the potestas inchoata to absolve, w^hile it is incorrect to say that the potestas ordinis is the potestas juris- dictionis inchoata or hahitualis; (5) that jurisdiction differs from the powers of Orders both in its essence and in the mode by which it is acquired; in its essence, since jurisdiction is the power of judging and binding subjects, while ordination only confers the power ex jure divino of acquiring jurisdiction and is the necessary condition that the absolution be sacramental; in its mode, since jurisdiction is imparted by the concession of the Church, while the power of Orders comes from the con- secration to the priesthood/ Jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated (ordinaria vel delegata). Christ appointed judges to preside over visible tri- bunals in His place and in His name, with authority, vicarious, it is true, but ordinary {aiictoritate quidem vicaria at ordinaria), that is, an authority emanating from the office to which they were appointed by Christ. These judges are the Apostles and their successors, the Pope, therefore, and the bishops, and these can appoint others to help them. 4 Palmieri, Tract, de Poenitentia, cp. II. Thes. XYI. p. 172 ss. 282 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Thus whoever in virtue of a pubhc, ecclesiastical office exist- ing of divine right has subjects over whom he rules and is judge, exercises jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance potestate ordinaria; others exercise this function potestate delegata vel a proprie dictis Superiorihus communicata ; hence the latter are dependent on their Superiors in the exercise of their powers quoad liceitatem et quoad valorem. Although any one with potestas ordinaria can impart it to another, the Supreme Authority of the Church on which de- pends all valid exercise of jurisdiction has so ordered it that no one may exercise delegated jurisdiction in the tribunal of pen- ance — at least with regard to lay people — w^ithout having previously received episcopal approbation; hence the delega- tion by those who are subject to the bishop and have powers of delegation is as a rule quite useless. Indeed, it is now the custom generally to give approbation and jurisdiction at the same time; nevertheless, cases might occur in which the dis- tinction must be observed. Approbation m se is nothing more than a formal declaration that a priest is a suitable person (aptus) to exercise sacramental jurisdiction; his fitness or capacity for the w^ork is judged by his science and morals. Approbation cannot be given licitly unless the fitness of the subject is ascertained or reasonably presumed, though its validity is not affected by the want of this fitness; but the Superior ought to withdraw his approbation when the subject is unfit. The Council of Trent interprets the phrase Public Approbation not only as a testimonium auctori- tativum that the priest is a fit subject to exercise jurisdiction, but also as the jacultas audiendi confessiones which the bishop grants to a priest who is considered fit for the office ; ^ for the Council declares that he only can hear confessions who has been given charge of a parish or who has received approbation. Be- 5 Trid. Sess. XXITI. cp. 15, reform. ORDERS, JURISDICTION, APPROBATIOX 283 yoncl that nothing else is demanded for the exercise of juris- diction^ hence approbation or the appointment to a parish is the only condition required for hearing confessions. Moreover, in papal constitutions the approbation is called licentia or facultas audiendi confessiones , and in common speech an approved priest is one who has jurisdiction.^ All this is in perfect agreement with the practice of bishops, who usually grant jurisdiction along with approbation.^ 6 Ben. XIV. De Syu. Lib. 9, cp. 16, n. 7; Instit. n. 14 ss. et Instit. 86; S. Carol. Borrom. Cone. Provinc. I. part 2 et VI. part 3, etc. ' BaUerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. 11. n. 546 ss. CHAPTER I JURISDICTION 37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction. I. The Pope has jurisdictio ordinaria over the whole Church. This requires no proof. The Vatican Council decreed that the jurisdiction of the Pope is a real episcopal jurisdiction, imme- diate and extending to all the faithful. Theologians discuss at length — ■ and it is a question not to be omitted here — how it is that the Pope can give power to another to absolve him- self (the Pope). Lugo discusses at length that there is no con- tradiction in the Pope delegating to another such jurisdiction over himself, and still less contradiction appears when we reflect that that jurisdiction in foro sacramentali, though exercised and delegated by the pastor of the Church, is always exercised in the name of Christ ; nor is there anything absurd in the fact of the Pope as a private individual being subject to his own juris- diction in his capacity as a pubhc person. Though he cannot bind and punish himself, he may subject himself to another and share in the graces and privileges of the Church, otherwise he could not obtain absolution at all.^ II. By divine right, the bishops exercise potestas ordinaria in their own dioceses, even in foro interno, subject, of course, to the authority of the Pope. Although every bishop receives his jurisdiction from the Holy See, the episcopal office is one of divine right and confers a definite jurisdiction, a very important 8 Cf. Palniieri, 1. c. Thes. XVI; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. II. n. 374. 284 ORDINARY JURISDICTION 285 section of which is the jurisdiction in foro sacramentali. As long as a bishop remains in office and in the exercise of it, he cannot be deprived of the power of absolving his subjects, though this power may be limited by reservations imposed by the Pope. A bishop may also, for grave reasons, be deprived of his office, or the exercise of it may be forbidden, or his jurisdiction taken away ; and such is the effect of certain ecclesiastical censures. III. By ecclesiastical law, all vicars-general, and sede vacante vicars-capitular, have the same jurisdiction as the bishop over his diocese in foro interno. The jurisdiction, however, of the vicar-general is wholly dependent on that of the bishop, hence the saying: Episcopi morte moritur Vicarius generalis; and he has no other faculties than those which the bishop has attached to his office. If, for instance, a bishop by a special privilege of the Holy See has more extended faculties, these do not pass to the vicar-general unless the bishop transfers them to him with leave from the Holy See. During the vacancy of the episcopal see, the whole of the bishop's faculties, with a few exceptions, are transferred to the vicar-capitular or administrator. IV. By the law of the Church, parish priests have jurisdictio ordinaria over their parishioners, and their power is measured by what the Church imparts to them as the constituted assist- ants of the bishop. In relation to their own parish they are pastores proprii, having only administrative power in foro externo, but in foro interno plena jurisdictio subject, of course, to such limitations as may be imposed by the Pope or their bishop. By his appointment (collatione) to a parish a priest acquires the right of hearing the confessions of his subjects. Nevertheless, the bishop has the right of examining his clergy periodically to make sure of their fitness to hear confessions.^ ^ Benedict XIV, Notificatione 9, n. 16 ; Scavini, 1. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, n. 98, nota 229. Cf. Deer. S. C. Concil. quoted by Scavini. The same author goes on to observe that by a decision of the Rota a causa sufficiens for a new examination may be libitum et sola quies episcopi when there is 286 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT V. The Cathedral Penitentiary has also ordinaria jurisdictio for the whole diocese in places where the office is established, and he may absolve all belonging to the diocese, even outside the boundaries of the diocese ; ^^ and this power is secured to him, not by any concession from the bishop, but by a law passed by the Council of Trent." VI. Others may, also, in virtue of the Church's law, acquire jurisdictio ordinaria, and as a matter of fact it is enjoyed by Pre- lati regulares with respect to their subjects, by Legates over their province. That of Cardinals over their churches is confined to very narrow hmits. Those are regarded as subjects who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the parish or diocese; hence the jurisdiction of bishops and parish priests is primarily local and secondarily personal ; that is, it extends to those who have their dwelling in a definite place. On the other hand, the juris- diction of Regular Prelates is chiefly personal, and is confined to definite local hmits only secondarily. Since the Council of Trent excepts from the further appro- bation of the bishops only those priests who are in charge of a parish, a difficulty may occur as to the jurisdiction of priests who have no parish, but who exercise a definite cura spiritualis over certain subjects. We must inquire first of all into the faculties which the Holy See has annexed to such offices, for since the Council emanated from the Holy See the latter is em- powered to make exceptions. The question is of peculiar inter- est with regard to mihtary chaplains, as to whether they can hear the confessions of soldiers in garrison without the appro- question of priests who have been examined by his predecessors; as for those whom he has himself examined, he is justified in calling them to account again quando adest vehemens suspicio de illoruin hnjyeritia, nor is it necessary that judicial proof of this imperitia be forthcoming. Deer. 15 Jan., 1667 et 22 Sept., 1668. Cf. Bened. XIV, De Synod, dioec. 1. 13, cp. 9, n. 21. 10 Scavini, 1. c. n. 98, nota 230; S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 555-558 ; II. A. n. 81. 11 §ess. XXIV. cp. 8 de reform. OBDINARY JURISDICTION 287 bation of the bishop of the diocese. No general rule can be laid down for all cases. Wherever a regularly appointed army-bishop or even a Capellanus major exists, he generahy receives the fullest faculties, not only for hearing the confessions of the soldiers himself, but also for appointing other priests or chaplains to that duty without consulting the bishop of the diocese ;^^ other- wise no mihtary chaplain may hear the confessions of soldiers in garrison without special powers from the Pope or the per- mission and approbation of the Orchnary.^^ Thus their faculties are confined to the soldiers when on the march or in camp. All who have jurisdidio ordinaria can receive the confessions of their subjects and absolve them wherever they happen to be, for such jurisdiction belongs to their office and accompanies them everywhere. Thus a parish priest can always hear the confessions of his parishioners whether he be within or beyond the bounds of his parish and diocese or not. A curate, chaplain, or other assistant priest cannot receive confessions outside the diocese, even if he have faculties for the whole diocese ; to do so he would have to apply to the bishop of the diocese in which the penitent happens to be. De jure a parish priest is approved only for the territory of his benefice "pro suo tantum oppido uhi sita sit parochialis eccle- sia,^^ according to the decrees of the S. C. C.^^ He may not, therefore, when in another chocese, hear the confessions of strangers (who are not his own subjects) without leave of the bishop of that diocese. Indeed, per se, he may not hear the confessions of strangers in another parish even of his own diocese. At the present day, how^ever, it is the practice sanctioned either by law or by custom that parish priests and their curates may hear confessions anywhere within the diocese. ^^ 12 Scavini, 1. c. n. 231 ; Benedict XIV, Quoniam, 28 Maj., 1746. 13 Acta S. Sed. Vol. I. p. 681, Rnsp. 6 Mart, 1694, 29 Jan., 1707, in Frising. 1* Bonix, De Parocho, p. iv. cp. 14. 1° Gobat, 1. c. Tract. 7, n. 45 ; Gury, Ed. Katisb. not. ad n. 552. 288 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT In his own parish a parish priest may hear the confessions of any one who approaches him, even strangers, since he is the approved confessor in his own parish. Jurisdictio ordinaria is lost : (a) by loss of the office or bene- fice to which it is attached; (5) by excommunication or suspension if the censure carries the stigma ^'vitandus.'^ Other excommu- nications or suspensions impede only the licit exercise (licitus usus) of the powers. 38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or Approbation. I. All priests who have not jurisdictio ordinaria, but act only ex jurisdictione delegata, require for the hcit and valid exercise of their office the approbation of the bishop of the place where they hear confessions, unless they enjoy some special privilege from the Holy See. The Constitution of Innocent XII, 9 Apr., 1700, ''Cum Sicut," is very explicit in this matter, as is also that of Innocent XIII, 23 Sept., 1723, ''Apostolici muneris," which was confirmed by Benedict XIV in his Constitution, 5 Aug., 1744, ''Apostohca indulta," in the following words: ''No priest, whether secular or regular, may hear confessions without the approbation of the Ordinary of the diocese where the penitent dwells or sojourns, and it is expressly decreed that all privileges to choose a confessor from the clergy approved by the bishop are to be understood only as giving powers to choose any one approved by the bishop of the place where the confession is made."^^ 1^ After the Council of Trent, a lengthy controversy arose among the theologians as to which bishop ought to give the approbation to the con- fessor; many thought it was the confessor's bishop, others the penitent's; with regard to exempted Regulars, it seemed probable that a single appro- bation, without restrictions from any bishop at all, was sufficient, since they are not the subjects of the bishops ; this had been granted by Clement YII and Sixtus V; moreover, Gregory XITT gave Religious, when on a jour- ney, the power of hearing confessions, provided they had the sanction of their Superior and approbation from any bishop ; this privilege, how- DELEGATED JURISDICTION 289 Since the conferring of approbation is not an act of the Ordo episcopalis but of episcopal jurisdiction, all who have ordinary episcopal jurisdiction can grant approbation, thus : (1) the bishop elect and confirmed, though not yet ordained; (2) the vicar- general since he exercises the jurisdiction of the bishop; (3) the vicar-capitular sede vacante, since he succeeds to the jurisdiction of the bishop; (4) vicars-apostoUc who are appointed by the Pope in place of bishops ; and (5) abbots who are not affiliated to a diocese. The bishop may insist on an examination before granting approbation, though he may dispense with it since there are other means of ascertaining the fitness of a priest for hearing confessions/^ Any priest whether secular or regular may be called on again for examination by the bishop, if the latter has not approved the candidate himself, although a former bishop may have done so. A confessor even approved by his own Ordinary may be examined if he has received approbation with- out undergoing examination. Those, however, whom the bishop has approved after an examination may not be reexamined without a justa causa}^ A bishop sins by refusing approba- tion to a competent priest, for all priests have a claim to approbation in virtue of their sacerdotal character, so that to deny it to a suitable candidate would be an infringement of his rights. The approbation which is necessary for a valid absolution may not be presumed; it must be actually conferred and made known to the priest ; for since there is question of the validity of an act, only the faculties which the bishop has really conferred, not those which he will grant, can be considered. Hence when a priest applies for faculties he cannot hear confessions till he ever, was not to be made use of in the towns or places where tlie bishop was actually residing, without the latter's perinission. Innocent XII, how- ever, withdrew all privileges contrary to his bull. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 458. 1'' Trid. 1. c. and the Constit. " Superna," Clem. X, etc. 18 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 552 ; H. A. 75. 290 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT has received them, even when from his knowledge of the bishop he feels confident of receiving the faculties and knows that they are already on the way. The faculties may be acted upon when conveyed verbally by any trustworthy person/^ Approbation is required even before absolving from venial sins already confessed; after the decree of Innocent XI, 1679, we cannot any longer assume that the Church here suppHes jurisdiction to the priest. ^^ A bishop in traveUng may take with him any of his priests to accompany him as confessor; but if the priest is not a sub- ject of said bishop (whether by domicile or quasi-domicile), he may not receive the confession of the bishop unless he be ap- proved, as St. Alphonsus adds, by the bishop of the priest's domicile (Fagnani and Lugo) or, as Scavini remarks, by the bishop of the place; the Congregation S. C. C. decreed so early as 1609 that a bishop outside his own diocese might confess only to a priest approved ah ordinario loci (except, of course, when the priest is a subject of the bishop), so that Scavini's decision is the norm to be observed in practice.^^ Cardinals, papal domestic prelates, and royalty may choose any approved confessor and be absolved by him anywhere. Even in Rome itself Cardinals and bishops may choose for themselves and for their household any suitable priest as con- fessor and retain him with them for that purpose also when they leave the city.^^ 19 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 570; H. A. n. 83. Lehmkuhl is of opinion that a priest who is convinced of the bishop's consent to his demand for approba- tion, may give absolution validly, but not licitly, when the paper granting the faculties has been signed and sent off, so that it cannot be reclaimed or changed except by a message directed to the priest himself, or when the bishop has given the paper containing the approbation to the priest's mes- senger, who has not yet delivered it. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 380, nota. 20 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 543, 582; H. A. 76, 132. 21 Confirmed by Greg. XTII, 1 Dec, 1582. 22 Cf. S. Alph. and the other authors quoted above. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c, Quid sit approbatio et a quo petenda, n. 546 ss. DELEGATED JUEISDICTION 291 A bishop can give faculties for hearing confessions in his own diocese to a priest belonging to another diocese, for the latter in ordine ad hoc opus is subject to the bishop of the diocese where the confessions are heard. This is the universal practice in the Church. A parish priest cannot of his own authority give faculties to a priest of another diocese to hear the confessions of his own parishioners because the jurisdictio ordinaria which goes along with the benefice extends only to the parish in his own charge. There is a custom, however, in many places among parish priests in outlying districts of the diocese to authorize the priest of a neighboring diocese to assist them in hearing confessions. This custom, which is recognized by the bishops, confers jurisdiction ex tacita episcoporum approhatione}^ Thus many bishops have an expHcit agreement by which approved priests of neighboring dioceses may assist one another in the confessional. Those who supply in another diocese, however, must pay attention to the cases reserved to the bishop in that diocese, since for the time being they are subject to him in ordine ad hoc munus. II. Approbation may be granted without any limitations; the bishop may, if he wish, Hmit the approbation according to time, place, and persons, most certainly if the approbation include jurisdiction, for the whole subject is one of delegation and all delegation is regulated by the intention of the Superior. Even when approbation in the strict sense only is conferred the bishop may ex rationahili causa confine it within a given time, a fixed place, or over a certain class of persons (children, men). The grounds for such a hmitation might be, for instance, defects of abiUty, care, or study. III. The bishop may not only impose limits in his approba- tion, but he may also recall it entirely, for all delegated author- ity exists only at the pleasure of the Superior; reasonable 23 Cf . S. Alph. 1. c. n. 544 ; H. A. n. 77. 292 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT grounds must exist for such withdrawal if it is to be Hcit. It is a debated point among theologians whether withdrawal without any grounds is valid or not. The view that such withdrawal is invalid because it is an unjust deprivation of rights conferred, is certainly probable and maintained, among others, by Suarez, Lugo, and St. Alphonsus; but since it is not easy to estabhsh the want of just grounds the view is of but little practical appli- cation; the bishop may be acting upon reasons which are im- known to his clergy, and while doubts remain, the presumption is always in favor of the bishop. ^^ IV. When the approbation is granted for a fixed length of time it ceases after that period; otherwise only by withdrawal; when given without any Hmitations it does not cease with the death of the giver, nor even when the recipient changes his domicile. This may be considered quite certain with regard to Regulars who have once received unlimited approbation.^^ Regulars, on account of their privileges and dependence on the Holy See, are distinguished in many details from the secular priesthood with regard to jurisdiction. V. The secular clergy receive jurisdiction and approbation either from their own bishop or from the bishop in whose dio- cese they are hearing confessions. Regulars receive jurisdic- tion from the Sovereign Pontiff through their Superiors, who must confer the jurisdiction as from the Pope, -not like the bish- ops granting it on their own authority, but only as representa- 24 S. Alph. n. 551 ; H. A. n. 75. 25 Whenever both jurisdiction and approbation are granted on account of the office which the priest exercises as a subject of the bishop, they lapse on the office being surrendered. Hence a secular priest who has had fac- ulties to hear confessions in some diocese in virtue of a chaplaincy or other appointment, is deprived of these faculties on being changed to another diocese unless the bishop is distinctly understood to wish to continue them. The same holds true for a Religious who has received faculties from his local Superior; his faculties lapse when he is removed to another diocese and do not revive merely by his return to the scene of his former labors. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 381, nota 1. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 293 tives of the Apostolic See. Besides this jurisdiction they must also have the approbation of the Episcopus loci; then as far as jurisdiction is considered they may absolve any one.^^ Though all Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope they cannot hear confessions without the approbation of the bishop, which may not be refused without just and reasonable motives; of these, however, the Regular is not the judge, and if he be refused approbation, he is effectually debarred from hearing con- fessions." Clement X imposed certain limitations on bishops with regard to the granting or refusing of approbation to the Regular clergy. He decreed :^^ — 1. That Religious who were proved capable of hearing con- fessions, should be permitted by the bishop to hear confes- sions anywhere in the diocese without restriction of time, place, or person; with regard, however, to those who were not so well prepared the bishop should be left to his own judg- ment in the matter of imposing restrictions. 2. Those who had once received approbation might hear the confessions of any of the faithful, even of the sick, without leave of the parish priest or even of the bishop, at any time of the year, including even Easter, within the diocese of the bishop 26 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. T. art. III. n. 379. Gary, II De Sacram. Poenit. P. III. cp. I. art. II. Append, n. 557. Scavini, Tract. III. Disp. I. cp. 3, art. 3, 519. Aertnys on Approbation says : in sensu quo Concilium Tridentinum usurpat, approbatio dicenda videtur facultas audiendi coiifessiones ah Episcopo facta Sacerdoti qui idoneus judicatus est — and he supposes that Regulars do not, as many maintain, receive jurisdiction from the 'Pope. He appeals to the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866, also Extrao. comm. cp. 2 de sepult ex clement., cp. 2 de sepiilt. and Extrao. comm. cap. un. de judic, where the Pope gives juris- diction to a Regular only when it has been refused by the bishop, whence it would seem that jurisdiction proceeds from the bishop except in the cases where he I'efuses to give it. Still it remains to Vie proved that Regulars do not receive jurisdiction from the Pope through their Superiors and approba- tion from the bishop. Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. in Germania, Nota Editoris ad n. 557. 2' Cf. Thesis 13 abAlexand. YIl. proscript. 28 Const. Superna. 294 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT who conferred the approbation; in cases where they had heard the confessions of the sick they should inform the parish priest, at least by a letter left with the sick person; the penalty for neglect in this matter being suspension from the right of hearing confessions. (The latter obligation is not enforced in missionary countries, where by general consent any approved priest may hear the confessions of the sick.) 3. Any Regular who has been approved by the bishop after examination and without any restriction cannot be called again for examination by his bishop (this does not hold when the fac- ulties have been obtained from the vicar-general or the prede- cessor of the bishop), nor can he be suspended from hearing confessions; moreover he cannot even be deprived of his facul- ties unless for reasons connected with the Sacrament itself; the reasons for such objection need not be judicially proved, nor is the bishop obliged to communicate them himself to the Regular in question, but he must reveal them to the Pope if the latter insists on being informed of them. Hence in the whole process the Regular must act in submission to the bishop, and if he be convinced that he is treated unjustly, he may have recourse to the Holy See ; in the meantime, however, his attitude must be one of submission. 4. Though a blameless life and unspotted morals are of the greatest moment in the ministers of this Sacrament ... no bishop can deprive a whole community of faculties on the ground of general unfitness, without consulting the Holy See. Hence we conclude : — 1. Approbation is justly limited in the case of Religious who have not passed an examination. 2. Approved Regulars may be recalled for examination: (a) when they have received approbation without examination ; (6) when after examination they have received only limited approbation; (c) when this approbation has been received from the vicar-general or the bishop's predecessor, and this DELEGATED JURISDICTION 295 though the examination has been passed and unhmited approba- tion conferred; {d) when any reason is presented connected with the Sacrament itself; and this holds for those who after examination even have received the fullest approbation from the bishop himself.^^ Except in the case of special legislation to the contrary on the part of the Holy See any Religious may receive both juris- diction and approbation ah Episcopo loci, and at the present day that ib the way in which bishops understand the conferring of approbation. This view solves the question of the validity of absolution given by a Religious without the knowledge or even against ths will of his Superior.^'' Moreover, Religious Superiors may receive from the bishop the power of imparting faculties to their subjects; the extent of the faculties must, of course, be ascertained. When, for example, th3 bishop gives general faculties, reserved cases are not included even when they are not expressly excepted. ^^ When the bishop gives more extended faculties, as, for instance, on the occasion of a mission, and a Religious Superior imparts to his subjects these faculties for the mission, he is supposed to give all the faculties which he has received from^ the bishop, because he is then acting only as the bishop's mouthpiece unless, of course, he states the contrary. When, again, the bishop gives faculties for a special object they are not to be used for anything beyond that object; it is another question when some special work is seized upon only as an occasion for asking and giving f acuities. ^^ 29 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 382 ; cf . Gury, 1. c. ; cf . Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 583 ss. 3<^ The case is solved by Aertnys, who quotes a decree S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. I. p. 683) : " .4n religiosus non approhatm juxta leges proprii Ordinis a suo Superiore vel ipso invito cum sola facultate ordinarii valide excipiat confessiones scecularium." R. " Affirmative." It is needless to say, of course, that such conduct is illicit. 31 In accordance with the Rule of Boniface YIII, ]. 5, tit. 10, cp. 2 in 6°. 32 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 383. 296 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT VI. Strangers (peregrmi), i.e. those who are not in the dio- cese of their domicile or quasi-domicile, may be absolved by a Religious without any difficulty as subjects of the Pope (from whom the Religious presumably receives jurisdictio delegata) ; they may also in virtue of an old and approved custom in the Church be absolved by any other confessor. This is the unanimous verdict of all theologians, though there is diversity of opinion as to the theory which justifies the practice of secular priests in this matter, nor is the manner of solving the question an indifferent matter; if, for instance, a stranger is absolved in virtue of the jurisdiction which his own bishop confers on the priest, the bishop can absolutely forbid him to seek absolution from a strange priest by declaring such absolution invalid ; (this, of course, applies to secular priests; with regard to Religious confessors there is no difficulty) .^^ Thus on the solution of this question depends the power over cases reserved in another dio- cese. Some theologians now maintain that the jurisdiction of a priest over a stranger is based on the tacit consent ^^ of all the bishops, while others hold that it is a universal custom of the Church having the force of law.^^ But neither the consensus Episcoporum, nor consuetudo, even when the latter has the force of law, can convey jurisdiction if we are to follow the teaching of the Church; we must suppose, then, that the propounders of such a view meant to state it thus : the Church, i.e. the Pope, either makes the Episcopus loci an Episcopus peregrincrum, or he delegates his own jurisdiction to all confessors. Since the first view is hardly possible, they are forced to the conclusion that the Pope, either by express or legal consent to the universal custom, grants to all approved confessors a delegated jurisdic- 83 Cf. Gary, 1. c. n. .5.55, Q. 13, Edit. Roman. Whether a bishop can forbid his diocesans to make their confessions outside his diocese under pain of invalidity. ®^ Gury, cf. 1. c. Edit. Ratisb. ad nn. 554, 555, also Nota Edit. 8^ Cf . S. Alph. L c. n. 569 : spectato consensu Episcoporum et consuetudine. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 297 tion to absolve strangers. It is beyond all doubt that this view is probable especially when we add the weight of St. Alphonsus' authority. The case, however, is not quite certain, for the exist- ence of the custom seems to prove no more than that the bishops themselves as a rule give a tacit consent to the arrangement, and it does not prove that the bishops are obliged to agree in ever,y case to this arrangement, or that their power over a subject is w^ithdrawn by the fact of his occasionally leaving the diocese; and it still remains to be proved that the Pope so entirely approves of the practice as to consent to break through the natural order of things by which all authority is communicated through immediate Superiors, not directly from the fountain- head; at the same time it is beyond all question that the Pope can if he so wishes empower any secular priest to hear the con- fessions of peregrini; and if a bishop were without any pressing reason to forbid his subjects to confess outside their own diocese, the Holy See could always be petitioned to apply a suitable remedy for such a prohibition, since under the present condition of things there must always be many people living outside of their own diocese. ^^ Other theologians teach that peregrini by the very fact of presenting themselves at the tribunal of penance in another diocese become subjects of the Episcopus loci or of the priest who derives his faculties from him, and this ex universali con- sensu quern P. M. Eugenius IV approhavit.^'^ But does the wish to receive the Sacrament make the peregrinus a subject of the bishop or the bishop his superior? Whoever maintains this and grants that the Episcopus loci is not the bishop of the pere- grinus, states in other words that one who is not actually a superior may be judge in foro interno. But is such a statement 36 Zeitschrift fur kathol. Theol., Innsbruck, 1881 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 385. 37 See Muller, 1. c. § 135, n. 5. Miiller also appeals to St. Alphonsus; Lugo, Disp. 20, Sect. 5, nn. 70, 72 ; Suarez, De Poenit. Disp. 30, Sect. 1, m 4 ; and many others. 298 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT in accordance with divine right? In any case the peregrinus remains the subject of the bishop of the diocese inwhichhehas domicile or quasi-domicile, and no proof can be adduced that the bishop of the place in which the peregrinus makes his con- fession has, by virtue of his office, power to absolve him ; he can do that only when he is superior in right of his office, and he can be superior only when he is the bishop of the peregrinus, since human and divine law recognize no other ecclesiastical supe- rior than Pope, bishop, parish priest, or their substitutes. But no one would maintain that the Episcopus loci is the true bishop of the peregrinus. Finally, other theologians explain the jurisdiction of the sec- ular priest over peregrini in this manner : that the bishop of the peregrinus grants tacitly the faculties to every approved priest and is generally obliged to do so.^^ The ecumenical synods of Flor- ence, Trent, and the Lateran declare that the absolution granted by any other than one's own Ordinary is invalid unless leave be obtained from him. Now such a permission is either a direct or indirect imparting of jurisdiction; hence every absolution is in- valid which is given without jurisdiction from the bishop of the penitent. It is on this ground that theologians and canonists alike, whether of the older or more recent school, insist upon the necessity of a consent on the part of the Superior or bishop of the penitent in the case of confessions made 'outside his own diocese. Ballerini (1. c. Dissert, n. 33 ss) concludes his learned investigation of this question in answer to the objections of the VindicicB Alphonsiance with the following propositions, which are not mere speculative conclusions, but are in fact the teach- ing of the Church, resting as they do on the very essence and nature of the Sacrament as solemnly explained and defined by the Holy See and ecumenical councils : (1) in order to absolve 38 Cf. Ballerini, Notge ad Gury, 1. c. ad n. 555, Q. 14 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. vol. V. 1. c. cp. II. nn. 613-627, Appendix-Disserlntio : De absolutione pereg^-jj^prjjiD; pp. 769-855, and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. nn. 379 et 384. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 299 a peregrinus, faculties must be granted by one who has ordinary jurisdiction over the penitent; (2) the existence of the custom of absolving peregrini outside their diocese neither conveys nor can convey the necessary jurisdiction; (3) jurisdiction is given by approbation or consent (express or tacit) or leave (implicit or explicit) of the Ordinary or of the particular pastor of the peregrinus; (4) this approbation or consent includes the im- parting of jurisdiction to the confessor chosen by the peregrinus; (5) a sufficient indication of this consent exists in the tolerance of a custom with the knowledge of the bishop and without any remonstrance on his part; (6) the delegation of jurisdiction depends on this consent in such wise that the pastor of souls may, at his own option, retract his consent, thus abolishing the custom and withdrawing entirely the power to absolve his sub- jects. All these statements are incontrovertible. Hence since a penitent can be absolved by his own bishop or- by the delegate of the latter, since the bishop of the peregrinus remains his superior in spite of the penitent being in another diocese transitorily, the latter can be absolved only in virtue of power granted tacitly by his own bishop. ^^ VII. As Vagi have no fixed domicile, their spiritual superior is the Pope, and by virtue of his express or tacit delegation they may be absolved by any approved confessor wherever they hap- pen to be; but they cannot be absolved by any but those approved for the place where the confession is made. It will be asked: Who is to give approbation for absolving travelers on the sea? This point has been settled in a very simple manner by a recent decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition. Any priest, approved by his Ordinary, may hear the confession of his fellow-travelers while the voyage is in pro- cess, though they pass through or stop off for a time in the terri- tory of another bishop.^** 39 Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. IT. De jurisdict. Conf. nn. ai3-627. 40 Deer. 4 Apr., 1900. 300 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 39. Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Suppljring of Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church. There is another kind of jurisdiction, viz. : when the Church makes good the deficiency of delegation; here jurisdiction is conveyed " supplente Ecclesia.'^ Let it be remarked at the outset that it is by no means per- missible to perform any act for which jurisdiction is necessary — therefore to give absolution — when the absence of jurisdic- tion is certain, even if the Church should supply to insure validity of the act. When jurisdiction is doubtful, it may be allowable to perform the act, especially if the Church really does supply. Before discussing the matter itself we must explain what is meant by the axiom : ^^The Church makes good deficient jurisdiction." The meaning of it is this : the Church, or the highest judicial authority of the Church, confers, in an exceptional manner, jurisdiction for individual acts, and the Church does this for the general welfare in ipso adu, that is, in the perform- ance of the act itself." There is, accordingly, a great difference between the jurisdiction which a man actually possesses, and that which he exercises " supplente Ecdesia.^' In the first case I possess the jurisdiction before I begin the act, before I hear the confession, or perform any other act for which jurisdiction is required ; indeed, I possess it in most cases habiiualiter . I pos- sess it also when the act is completed. But he who absolves or performs any other function supplente Ecdesia receives the jurisdiction only when the action has already begun — in this case when he is about to pronounce absolution — in order that he may carry to its end the confession which has begun; the action once completed, — in this case the absolution being pro- nounced, — he has no further jurisdiction. When, therefore, previous to an action, a priest already prohabiliter possesses jurisdiction, the Church, if she suppHes, must do so only condi- ^1 Lessius, l)e jusiiLiu cu jure, I. 2, cp. 29, iin. 65 and 68. JUEISDICTIO JDELEGATA EXTRAORBINABIA 301 tionally, upon the presumption that he possessed no jurisdic- tion; that is, when that jurisdiction which he was beheved to have was as a matter of fact not existing. The Church supphes deficiency of jurisdiction: — 1. When one who exercises a power possesses a titulus colora- tus for this power, and when, at the same time, the error is gen- eral amongst the faithful, in such sort that the absence of real power is mostly unknown. A titulus coloratus (apparent title) is one that is in itself false, but yet really exists; that is, one which has been conferred by lawful authority and, therefore, bears the appearance and outward form of a true title, even when, for some cause or other, it is void by an essential de- fect.^^ The supplying action of the Church in this case is based upon the right itself which she has conferred and ratified; this is the teaching of all theologians.^^ The Church, they say, sup- plies as a good mother in the interest of the welfare of souls.^^ 2. When there is no titulus coloratus but only error communis ,'^^ many theologians are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case also for the general welfare. St. Alphonsus adopts this opinion as probable, because the Church supplies for defective jurisdiction more with a view to the common good than out of consideration for the title. ^^ It will scarcely, however, be possible to assign to this opinion a real and substantial probability; a number of theologians are in- deed in favor of it, but not a few of considerable repute are opposed to it (Lugo, Sanchez, Lessius, and others). It is, *2 A priest, for example, who has obtained a parish by simony, has, accord- ing to canon law, an invalid title. But if he was appointed to the parish by a lawful bishop, he has an " apparent title." 4^ Cap. "infamis," cans. 3, Q. 7 (c. 1). 44 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 572. 45 In forming a judgment as to whether error communis or error paucorum is in question, we must not consider if many or few seek administration of the Sacrament of Penance from one possessing no lawful power, but if many or few have been aware of the absence of power, 46 S. Alph. n. 572. 302 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT therefore, canon law which must decide the question, the more so, as we have not to do directly with what may be allowed or not, but with the positive conferring of, possibly, non-existent jurisdiction. Now what is to be gathered from the canon law on this point seems plainly opposed to the more lenient view given in a decision of the S. C. Cone, of 11 December, 1683, which Benedict XIV ^^ cites to settle the question. The mat- ter remains, therefore, doubtful. The harm, however, which can result from the negative opinion is not very great, as a confessor cannot long exercise his office without title, and such harm is made good by subsequent communion or confession. Several theologians, moreover, rightly maintain that the faithful are not bound in this case to repeat those confessions which they haye, bona fide, made to a priest, who, ex communi errore, passed for a confessor. 3. But when there is question not of error communis but only of error privatus in a few persons, the Church certainly does not supply the defective jurisdiction, because here the honum com- mune is not at stake. ^^ From this it follows : — 1. That it is not allowed knowingly to make use of a power arising only from an ^^ apparent" title, although the Church should positively supply ; but he who is not aware of the defect of his title — this title being in reahty only an apparent title — has nothing to rectify subsequently, as his actions were vahd (supplente Ecclesia). 2. Still less is it allowable for one who knows that he pos- sesses neither power nor title to act on the ground of general error; in the first place, because he assumes a power which he does not possess, and because, moreover, he exposes to danger those who are most interested in the vahdity of his actions. ^'^ Instit. 84, n. 22. 48 S. Alph. 1. c. ; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. ad n. 548, Q. II; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 226. Q. Ill; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. nn. 636-639. JURISDICTIO BELEGATA EXTRAORDINABIA 803 Connected with the above is the question: does jurisdictio prohahilis or duhia suffice for the vahd and lawful administra- tion of absolution. The question turns only on prohahilitas juris, a soHdly probable, though not necessarily certain, interpre- tation of the law declaring that jurisdiction is possessed. This may occur with regard to the questions : whether the jurisdic- tion possessed extends to this or that case, to this or that person ? or, whether the jurisdiction once possessed has been revoked? But a jurisdiction is doubtful when the uncertainty of it rests upon a doubt or a probable fact. Upon this distinction between probable and doubtful jurisdiction we must insist, St. Alphonsus ^^ does so, and that chiefly in order to show that, in the case of a duhium facti, — thus, doubtful jurisdiction, — the faculty for the exercise and the validity of the act (here of absolution) always remains doubtful, whereas, in the case of pro- hahilitas juris, the validity of the action after it has been per- formed is morally certain. When such probable jurisdiction {prohahilitas juris) is in question, it is, as St. Alphonsus teaches, morally certain that the Church confers jurisdiction, if it has previously (antecedenter) been w^anting. The saint calls this teaching communissima, and demonstrates it by the fact that the Church, in the person of her chief pastor, tacitly tolerates the old custom of absolving with such jurisdiction, and thus sufficiently expresses her consent. With regard to the jurisdictio duhia, however, the contentions of many authors are not of this nature.^^ If many are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case also, and base their opinion upon the fact that the Church supphes when there is only error communis and not titulus coloratus, we need but refer to what has been previously said upon this head.^^ *9 Lib. YI. nn. 571, 573. 50 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432 ; Lacroix, 1. c. L. VI. P. I. n. 110 ss. ; Lessius, 1. c. L. IL cp. 28, nn. 67 et 68 ; Renter, Theol. Moi-. P. IV. n. 53. 51 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 572 ; Gury-Balleriiii, 1. c. n. 548, Edit. Ratisb. 1. c. ; Balleriiii, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De Jurisdict. un. 628-636. 304 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT According to this it is morally certain that the Church, in the case of previous juris prohahilitas, supplies jurisdiction. But if the jurisdiction is doubtful on account of a duhium facti, the Church does not supply if the error exists only with a few ; as the error is usually general, it remains doubtful whether the Church supplies. It is not always wrong to use doubtful juris- diction in administering the Sacrament of Penance, particularly when the reason for it is pressing, when absolution is urgently necessary, and when it would be better to absolve with doubtful validity than not to absolve at all. But in this case it would always be necessary to instruct the penitent as to the value of the absolution administered. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, absolution may be administered with a doubtful jurisdiction in the following cases: (1) When the obligation of yearly confession must be fulfilled exactly at that time; (2) when the penitent must say Mass or communicate, and this cannot be omitted without bringing upon himself disgrace; (3) when the priest must say Mass in fulfilment of his duty. In these cases a priest possessing only doubtful jurisdiction may absolve conditionally when no other confessor is at hand.^^ But the saintly Doctor ^^ remarks that, in this case, the confessor would be bound to inform the penitent who had accused himself of mortal sin that he had been only conditionally absolved, so that if afterwards it should become manifest that the confessor really possessed no jurisdiction, the penitent might fulfill his duty of confessing his sins again. ^^ ^2 Lehmkuhl adds the following case : when a priest has, bonajide, begun to hear a confession, and a doubt has arisen in his mind as to whether the period of his approbation has expired, there being no possibility of satis- fying himself upon the point, this confession, begun and considerably advanced, may be concluded if great inconvenience would otherwise result to confessor and penitent; the confessor must, however, inform the peni- tent that the absolution administered was of doubtful validity ; but if he could, without great inconvenience to either party, break oft" the confession, he must do so. Lehmkulil, 1. c. n. 390, nota 1. °8 L. c. n. 432. ^4 cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. nn. 390 and 391. JURISDICTIO DELEGATA EXTRAORDINARIA 805 In order to absolve with probable jurisdiction, a legitimate reason is necessary and this exists : (1) When the penitent stands in special need of the help of this particular priest; (2) when the accomplice of the penitent is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction, but unknown to him who possesses only probable jurisdiction; (3) if the penitent were under an urgent obligation of confessing, if a particular indulgence were to be gained, if the penitent would not be able to confess for a long time, and a priest with certain jurisdiction were not at hand.^^ A special case in which the Church supplies deficient juris- diction is in articulo mortis. The necessary jurisdiction for the absolution of dying persons is conferred by the Church upon any priest, when no approved confessor is at hand, so that any priest may absolve dying per- sons from all sins/^ 55 S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 573, 600 ; H. A. n. 91, with Suarez, Gobat, Elbel, Sporer, etc. 56 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. c. 7, where reserved cases are spoken of, and the following is decreed : " That no one may perish, it has always been the usage of the Church that there should be no reservation at the hour of death, and, therefore, that all priests may absolve any penitent from any sins and censures whatever." These words of the Council are variously interpreted, some believing that all priests, without exception, receive juris- diction from the Church, others believing that it is necessary to affix a limi- tation : when no other approved priest is at hand to whom the dying person could easily and without danger confess ; these latter, therefore, limit the words " omnes sacerdote.s " on account of the intention expressed in the pre- ceding words : " ne quis pereat'^ and the other ones : " ut nulla sit reservatio" maintaining that these words indicate that there is question of priests who otherwise possessed jurisdiction, namely, " when no otherwise approved priest is at hand." According to the first interpretation, and the opinion based upon it, a sacerdos simplex (therefore non approbatus) could valide administer absolution to a dying person in presence of approved priests. A great number of theologians defend this opinion (Ballerini mentions twenty-five in his notes to Gury, 1. c. ad n. 551, Q. 8, and in his Opus. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. n. 581), and St. Alphonsus does not venture to reject it, though, in spite of the reasons advanced by these authorities, he maintains that a simplex sacerdos can only absolve a dying 306 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT An approved priest is considered not to be present, not only when he is bodily but also morally out of reach; that is, in the following cases: (1) When the approved priest who is present does not wish to hear the confession of the dying person or cannot hear it, for in such a case he would be practically absent ; (2) when he is excommunicated or sus- pended;^^ (3) if an approved priest should arrive when the confession to the unapproved priest has already begun ; (4) if an approved priest were complex of the dying person in peccato turpi ;^^ (5) if this priest is so displeasing to the sick person that the latter would be in danger of sacrilegious confession; there would then be danger of the soul of the sick person being lost, a risk which it was the intention of the Council of Trent to obviate.^^ What ha& been said above concerning the administration of absolution in articulo mortis stands good also for its administra- person when no other approved priest is at hand, and he is supported in this opinion by the authority of the Koman Ritual, which (De Sacram. Poenit. sub init.) teaches that : when danger of death threatens, and an approved priest is not present, any priest can absolve from all sins and censures. This opinion of St. Alphonsus is the most general, though, according to Ballerini and Lehnikulil, probability is not to be denied to the other oj)inion, in view of the authority of so many theologians, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation. 5"^ Such a priest may valide absolve a dying person if no other priest be present, for the Tridentine says : quiUbet sacerdos may absolve in articulo mortis. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 560 circa fin.; Gury -Ballerini, 1. c. n. 550. But it is not difficult to see why (lejiclente alio sacerdote is added here ; for the communicatio in sacris with heretics and with excommunicated persons who are to be avoided {excommunicati vitandi) is a grave sin, unless when excused by necessity; a penitent, therefore, would himself commit a grave sin if he should solicit absolution from a heretical priest, or one to be avoided (a vitandus), unless no other priest should be at hand. To ask the Sacra- ment of Penance from such an unhappy priest, and to receive it, even when it is allowed, appears, however, to be in any case a dangerous proceeding; evil influence at the most important moment of human life, and also scan- dal to others, are to be feared. 58 See § 46. 59 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 562, 563. THE CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS 307 tion in quolihet gravi periculo mortis. ^'^ For the two situations are generally considered as identical ; moreover, the Ritual says : ^'When danger of death threatens;" besides there is a divine precept to confess when there is danger of death also, and thus there arises a case of necessity. A grave periculum mortis is considered to exist : (1) In a dan- gerous illness; (2) in times of plague; (3) at a difficult birth; (4) before a very difficult surgical operation; (5) in battle, or shortly before it ; (6) before a very dangerous sea voyage, etc.^^ 40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of Religious Orders. Hitherto we have treated of the powers necessary to the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance — secular and regular priests — in order that they may validly and lawfully hear the confessions of lay people (seculares). It remains now to discuss the regulations laid down by the Church concerning the jurisdiction over men and women belonging to Religious Orders emitting vota solemnia. I. The Superiors of Religious Orders, or the local Superiors, although they possess full jurisdiction over their subjects in foro interno, are bound to appoint others as confessors, so that the subjects may not be obliged to confess to their own Superiors ; it is only in certain definite cases that a subject is bound to go to confession to his Superior. The inmates of a rehgious house may indeed confess to their Superiors, and the latter must hear their confessions; but this must be left to the option of the subordinates. One or more confessors may, however, be nomi- nated in the individual houses, so that no rehgious can validly confess to any other but these; unless a confessor has received ^ There is periculum mortis when the ilhiess is such as may, according to the judgment of the physicians, and experience, result in death, sive id abso- lute, idest generatim pro omnibus verijicetur, sive respective propter circumstantias hujus injirmi. Ballerini, L c. ^^ S. Alph. L c. n. 561. 308 THE MINISTER OF THE SACBAMENT special powers for this purpose from the Holy See or from the Roman Penitentiary.®^ Only when a Jubilee occurs and usually once may Regulars choose as confessor a priest out of those approved by the Or dinar ius, in order to gain the Jubilee indul- gence. Several confessors are generally nominated so that the subjects may have a choice from among them.®^ II. Confessors for Regulars receive their jurisdiction from the Superiors of the latter. Not only priests belonging to Reli- gious Orders, but also secular priests (even those who have not been approved by their bishops), may be empowered by Supe- riors to act as confessors to their subjects, unless this be for- bidden by the constitutions of the Order.®* This faculty belongs to Superiors of Religious Orders by com- mon law, since, by virtue of their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, they possess quasi-episcopalem jurisdictionem over their subordinates. The Council of Trent has altered nothing in this matter, as it speaks only of the jurisdiction or approba- tion necessary for the confessions of lay people; moreover, Clement VIII has expressly granted this faculty to Superiors of Orders. The confessor of Regulars can absolve those for whom he is appointed confessor, even outside the monastery, as this jurisdiction is not Hmited to a definite place, and no further approbation of the bishop is necessary. Regulars who are on a journey or staying outside their monastery must confess to a member of their Order who is near them, even when the latter is not otherwise appointed for confessions ; if, however, . they have no opportunity of confessing to one of their Order, they may do so to any other regular or secular priest. This priest (according to the sententia communissima, which St. Alphonsus considers the more probable) need not even be approved by the Episcopus 62 Const. Clem. VTIT, Rom. Pontif. 1599. 63 Decret. Clem. VIII, Sanctissimus. 64 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. de Ttjenit. Disp. 2, Q. 1, cp. 3, § 2. THE CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS 309 loci,^^ as it is presumed that the Order, or its Superior, confers in such a case delegated jurisdiction upon any priest whom the rehgious has chosen for his confessor.^^ III. Those who can be vahdly absolved only by a priest authorized by a Superior of an Order are : not only the religious and their novices, but also lay persons, who, as really belonging to the monastic community, live in the monastery or college; servants, for example, and others who regularly live and take their meals in the monastery. ^^ IV. As regards the question whether priests of an Order, by virtue of the authorization of the Superiors of their Order, may 65 S. Alph. ]. c. n. 575; Aertuys, 1. c. ii. 232, II. Q. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. 11. 395, ad II. 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 640. 60 This freedom, as Lehmkuhl remarks, exists for the members of the Society of Jesus, so that they are not obliged, when on a journey, to seek a priest of their own Order. Certain theologians, however, are unwilling to concede this to all Orders. Benedict XIV, in the Brief " Quod communi," 30 March, 1742, allowed the Capuchins to confess to others not of their Order, attaching the conditions, however, that the priest to whom they confessed must be approved ; the same condition was laid down for mem- bers of the Augustinian Order on June 3, 1863 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. 1, p. 677), and the S. Poenitdut., 18 April, 1867, the S. C. Ep. et Regul., 3 July, 1862 and 27 Aug., 1852 (see Bucceroni, P^nchirid. pp. 127 et 128), demand the same condition tor the dispersed Regulars. From which it is to be con- cluded that the Sacerdotes idonei, of whom the privileges of Sixt. IV and In- noc. VIII speak, umst be approved priests. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. This seems also to hold for tiie congregations under vota sijnpiicia, who possess the privi- lege of exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, as this regulation is based hot upon the solemnity of the vows, but upon the said exemption. 6" This follows from the Bull Clem. X, Snperna, 21 July, 1670, already mentioned, partly printed in Gury, Ed. liatisb. l\. ad n. 559. According to the Council of Trent, all those lay persons are free from episcopal jurisdic- tion who belong to the household of (real and exempted) Religious Orders. But in order that the servants of a monastery may enjoy this privilege, the following conditions must concur : (1) they must really serve the religious of the monastery; (2) they must live within the inclosure at the expense of the monastery: (3) they must be under obedience to the religious of the Order; this obedience need not be the obedience of the religious; it must, however, be such as servants owe to their masters. Cf . Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. II. de ref. ; Barbosa, de Parocho cum animadvers. ; Giraldi, p. 2, cp. 20, u. 12 ; Gury, 1. c. ad 562. 310 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT also hear the confessions of the inmates of their monasteries intrusted to them for education, theologians do not agree. Some, amongst whom are Gury (n. 564), Lehmkuhl (n. 394), Marc (n. 1763, Q. 2), and Aertnys (n. 232), admit it, pointing out certain Orders to which this has been expressly permitted, and in this privilege (these authorities maintain) the other Orders participate. St. Alphonsus is also of this opinion (583), appealing to Bordone; also Mazzotta (1. c), Lugo, Schmalz- grueber, and others. Lehmkuhl calls this opinion probable and says: We may, therefore, act according to the principles discussed above concerning probable jurisdiction. However, this does not seem to be generally admissible. For no law accords to Regular priests a general privilege of this kind. The extension to all other Orders of a privilege granted to some is not allowable here, for this privilege derogates from the rights of a third party, in this instance the bishop and the parish priests; and it is clear from the decisions of the sacred congre- gations that unlimited jurisdiction over their students does not belong to Regulars. ^^ On the other hand, Regulars possess jurisdiction over their students: (1) When this jurisdiction is explicitly conferred upon an Order or educational establishment; (2) when the religious have acquired it by legitimate custom ; (3) when there is question of religious in the sense that, according to the ordinances of the Council of Trent, the students can be designated as belonging to the household. This latter, however, is not the case when the house in which the educational estab- lishment is situated is not actually the monastic building, or when the members of the Order and the students do not form an association of the nature of a family. Nor can those pupils be regarded as belonging to the household who pay for their board, and are yearly received into the educational establish- es Cf. r>ouix,de Kegul. T. IT. p. 5, Sect. 3, c. 2. JURISDICTION FOB THE CONFESSIONS OF NUNS 311 ment or seminary. But as the matter is a difficult one and difference of opinion prevails amongst theologians, Bouix sug- gests as a practical solution the removal of such boys or girls from parochial control.^^ 41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns. What we are about to say concerning nuns refers to nuns in the strict sense of the word, namely, to such as have taken solemn vows and are bound by the regulations of the inclosure, but not to the religious congregations which have no inclosure, nor, in general to such nuns as, with permission of their Superiors, are living outside the convent. '^'^ The bishop can except from the general approbation any religious female congregation, and if he has done so, the con- fessors must act conformably. In most dioceses the regulations of the Church concerning confessors of nuns — both ordinary and extraordinary confessors — are extended to the female congregations also which take only simple vows, and are not bound to strict inclosure. This discipline is, in fact, very good, and quite in conformity with the intention of the Holy See.^^ 69 Cf. Bouix, 1. c. ; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 564, nota. '° Although, according to the rules of interpretation, by the word Moniules in the Papal Bulls, only Moninles in the strict sense are to be understood, that is, the members of a Religions Order approved by the Holy See, who observe the Papal inclosure ; yet Benedict XIV has expressly declared, in his Bull " Pastoralis curse," that the ordinances of tlie Trid. Sess. XXY. cp. 10 de Regul. et INIon, which contain a part of the present discipline, only apply claustralihus monialihus. '1 This is clear from a note of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. to the constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin (23 July, 1860) : "As regards the confessors,- the Constit. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curse is to be observed, in accordance with which the confessors are to be appointed by the respective bishops." In the constitutions of the Sisters of Nazareth, who have no inclosure, the same congregation decreed on 27 Sept., 1861 : "As regards the Confessor, extraordin., the ordinances of the Council of Trent are to be observed, as also the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curse." Cf. Muller, 1. c. S. 140. 812 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT The following regulations are in force with regard to the con- fessors of nuns : — I. Not every priest approved by a bishop can hear the con- fessions of nuns, but only one who has received special appro- bation and jurisdiction for the purpose from the Episcopus loci. Indeed, the priest approved for one convent cannot valide hear the confessions of the nuns of another convent, unless he be generally appointed for the confessions of nuns.'^^ II. The confessors of exempted nuns also require the appro- bation of the bishop, but they are chosen and appointed by the Superiors of the Orders to whom they (the exempted nuns) are subject; and if these Superiors themselves w^ish to hear the confessions of the nuns w^ho are subject to them, they must likewise obtain the approbation of the bishop. It is only when the nuns obey Superiors with quasi episcopal jurisdiction that their confessor does not require the approbation of the bishop. ^^ III. According to the declaration of Clement XI the confess- ors of nuns should not only be learned, prudent, and pious, but also of mature years. '^'^ The bishop must, therefore, take care that a confessor be chosen in whom the nuns may have con- fidence. Without Papal authorization vicars-general, canons, and others who are bound to observe choir in virtue of a benefice, also parish priests (when the care of souls -would materially suffer thereby), cannot discharge the office of an ordinary con- fessor. This applies also to priests of a Religious Order with regard to nuns who are immediately subject to the bishop. The former may, however, exercise the office of extraordinary confessors. The ordinary confessor must hear the confessions '■- Cf. Const. Inscrutabili, Gregor. XV; Const. Siiperna, Clem. X (21 June, 1670) ; Const. Pastoralis Officii et Pastoralis curse, Bened. XIV. ■^3 Cf. Declarat. IS. C. C. ad dub. 7 et 8, post Const. Inscrutabili, in Biil- lario posita. ■^^ Scavini, Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, art. 2, n. 123. Ferraris ad v. Moni- ales, art. 5, n. 49. JURISDICTION FOR THE CONFESSIONS OF NUNS 313 of nuns as often as it is reasonably demanded of him. More- over, he must not conduct himself as a Superior of the convent, since, according to the decree of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 7 Sept., 1797, such authority does not belong to him."^^ The confessor appointed for nuns shall not discharge his office longer than three years, and cannot, at the expiration of this period, hear confessions in the same convent without per- mission of the S. C. Ep. et Reg.^^ Several authorities, however (St. Alphonsus, Bouvier, Gury, Scavini), remark that the bishop may allow the confessor to exercise his office longer than three years when other suitable priests are wanting. At the time of a Jubilee, nuns, like Regulars, may, in order to gain the Jubilee indulgence, once choose for themselves any confessor from amongst priests approved by the Episcopus loci for hearing the confessions of nuns either in general or for a particular convent. '^^ IV. The bishops, or Superiors of Orders, who are authorized to appoint and choose the ordinary confessor, are bound to appoint an extraordinary confessor for the nuns subject to them two or three times a year. Although the nuns are not bound to confess to this extraor- dinary confessor, they must, nevertheless, all repair to him, be it either to make a sacramental confession or to receive from him wholesome exhortation."^^ The following is to be observed regarding the Confessarius extraordinarius : — 1. Although the Tridentine Session here speaks of inclosed nuns only {moniales claustrales) , Benedict XIV wishes the appointment of the extraordinary confessor to be extended to '5 Gury, Ed. Ratisbon. T. 11. 1. c. ad n. 565. 76 Cf . Decret. S. C. Ep. et Reg., 20 Sept., 1642. " Const. Bened. XIY, Benedictus Deus, 25 Dec, 1750. '^ Cf . Trident. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regnl. et Mon. and Const. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curae, 5 Ang., 1748. 314 THE MINISTER OF THE SACBAMENT all communities of nuns who have only an ordinary confessor appointed by the Superiors. 2. The choice of the extraordinary confessor belongs to the Ordinarius loci for those convents which are under him, and to the Superior of the Order for those for which the latter appoints the ordinary confessor; every extraordinary confessor must have special approbation as such from the bishop. The Supe- riors of Regulars, however, cannot always appoint a priest of their own Order, but must at least, once a year, choose a secular priest or one of another Order. If the Superior of the Order neglects to choose an extraordinary confessor, the bishop must do so ; should the bishop neglect this duty, the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary must act. 3. During the time when the extraordinary confessor is exer- cising his office in a community, the ordinary confessor may not remain in the community to hear confessions. 4. The extraordinary confessor may not be refused to indi- vidual nuns in case of serious illness or invincible reluctance towards the ordinary confessor. The case of a nun in danger of death being refused an extraordinary confessor is provided for in the decree of the Tridentine Session, XIV. cp. 7 : in articulo mortis omnes sacerdotes quoslihet poenitentes . . . ahsolvere posse. But should a nun wish to confess occasionally to a particular confessor, not out of fickleness, or imprudent preference, but truly on account of her spiritual advancement, it is advisable that the Superiors should not oppose such wish."^^ ■^^ All these precepts are contained in the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curae. Pope Leo XIII, quoted above, has renewed the same quoad confessarioa ordinarios et extraordinarios by a Decretum S. Congregat. Ep. et Regul. de conscientiae ratione Confessariis e.xtraordinariis, etc., d. 17 Dec, 1890, and exhorts Prce- sules and Superiores, " ne extraordinarium denegent subditis Confessarinm guolies ut proprice conscientice consulant ad id subditi adigantur, quin iidem Superiores ullo modo petitionis rationem inquirant aut cegre id ferre demonstrent. Ac ne evanida tarn provida dispositio fiat, Ordinarios exhortatur (sc. Sanctitas sua), ut in locis proprice Dioeceseos Sacerdotes facultatibus instructos designent, JURISDICTION FOR THE CONFESSIONS OF NUNS 315 Extraordinary confessors, nominated by the bishop for a single occasion, can only discharge this office once. They must be approved by the bishop as often as they have to discharge the office of extraordinary confessor/*^ unless they have a general approbation for the confession of nuns. ad quos pro Sacramento Pcenitentice recurrere ece facile queant." This decree was occasioned by precepts in the constitutions '^plurlum Congj-egationum, Societatum aut Institutionum sive mulierum, quce vota simplicia aut solemnia nuncupatit, sioe rirorwn professione ac regimine penitus laicorum." 80 Cf. Declar. S. C. C. ad dub. I. poss. Const. Inscrutabili et Constit. Clem. X, Superna. CHAPTER II LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES 42. Reserved Cases in General. The Church has received from Christ the power to remit or to retain all sins without exception. No sin is withheld from the cognizance of its judicial authority or the power of its keys. This unlimited power of chief justice and plenipotentiary re- sides in the hands of the Supreme Head of the Church ; it is in the possession of the Vicegerent of Him who has said of Him- self: ''To Me is given all power in heaven and on earth." In the exercise of the judicial power in foro interno, the pastors of the Church are dependent upon and subject to him. This relation between the Pope and the pastors of the Church is ex- pressed in the reservations ; ^^ that is, by the ecclesiastical disci- pline in virtue of which the Pope reserves certain sins in order to absolve from them himself, and places a limit upon the juris- diction of the bishops by withholding from them the power to absolve from certain sins. And as the Pope proceeds with regard to the bishops, so can the bishop, and the Superiors of Orders, and those possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, pro- ceed with regard to their respective subordinates. This competence to declare certain sins reserved, which ex- isted in the earliest times of the Church as is proved by number- ^^ " Reservatio est : ablatio sen nonconcessio jurisdictionis ad absolvendum ab aliquo peccato, quauivis circa alia concedatur." Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. 11. 657. 316 BE SERVED CASES IN GENERAL 317 less memorials, is promulgated by the Council of Trent/^ which also emphasizes the reason of this practice : ^^It has seemed con- ducive to the morality of the Christian people that certain particularly horrible and grave sins should not be absolved by every priest, but only by those of the highest authority. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Popes, by virtue of the power invested in them over the whole Church, should reserve certain grave sins for their own tribunal." Having then assigned this power to the bishops also, the Council declares that this reser-. vation of sins has validity not only in the outward administra- tion of the Church, but also before God. From this it follows that : — I. The motives for the reservations, apart from the mainte- nance of authority, are : (a) the necessity of deterring the faith- ful from the commission of these great sins by thus making it more difficult to obtain absolution ; (b) the necessity of applying a special remedy, so that those who have been guilty of such crimes may be the more efficaciously preserved from relapse. In order that the former object may be the more perfectly at- tained, it is necessary in an appropriate manner to make known to the people what sins are reserved. II. We distinguish : (1) Reservation by the Pope, by a bishop, and by the Superior of an Order; (2) reserved sins, when the sin itself is directly reserved, and reserved censures, when the censure attached to a sin is reserved, and the sin itself is reserved only in consequence of the censure. If the reserved censure is only the means by which the sin is reserved, upon removal of the censure the sin is no longer reserved. In the papal reserved cases the censure only is directly reserved ; in episcopal and other reserved cases generally the sin only is reserved, not the censure. Two Papal cases, in which the sin without the censure is re- served, form exceptions to this rule, namely : (a) Falsely accusing ^2 Sess. XTV. cp. 7, can. IT. Cf. Perrone. De Poen. cp. 5 ; Zeniier, Instruct, pi-act. P. 1, cp. II. § 44; Palmieri, Tract. Be Pcen. Thes. XVII. p. 178 ss. 318 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT an innocent confessor of solicitation, either by denouncing the confessor to the ecclesiastical judge one's self, or by effecting such denunciation through another person ; ^^ {h) the receiving of considerable presents exceeding the value of ten francs on the part of members of Religious Orders (emitting solemn vows) of both sexes, till restitution has taken place {munera prorsus libe- ralia are meant; hence presents of medicaments and devotional objects, as also those presents which were given out of gratitude and benevolence or for the purpose of securing the good-will of a person, are excepted). ^^ If the presents amount to a higher sum, and if the penitent can make restitution, he is not to be ab- solved till he has done so. If, however, he cannot make restitu- tion at the time, but promises faithfully to do so as soon as possible, the confessor can absolve him. III. The power to reserve is possessed by the Pope in the whole Church ; by the bishops in their dioceses ; by the heads of Orders who possess quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in their Orders — the General of the Order for the whole Order, the Provincial in his province, the local head in his house — but apart from specified sins mentioned by Clement VIII, these religious Superiors may not reserve any others without consent of the generalchapter.^^ ^■3 Const. Bened. XIV, Sacrameiitum Poenitentiae, 1 eJuiie, 1741. 84 Const. Clem. VIIT, Relio^iosse Cormreg-ationes, 19 June, 1594, et Urban VIII, Nuper a Congregat. 16 Oct., 1610. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 580, 693; H. A. Tr. 13, nn. 8, 9; Fenar, ad v. Kegular. art. I. nn. 67-69. ^^ S. Alph. 1. c. n. 583 ; H. A. n. 130. These specified cases are the follow- ing : 1. Apostasy from the Order, even when the habit of the Order is still retained. 2. Secretly absenting one's self from the monastery at night. 3. Three forms of superstition : Vene/icla, incanladones, sortUecjia. 4. Pos- session of property against the vow of poverty, which constitutes a mortal sin. 5. Theft (to the extent of mortal sin) of goods belonging to the monastery. 6. Lapsus carnis voluntarily opere consummntus. 7. Perjury before a lawful judge. 8. J^rocuratio, consilium vel auxilium ad abortum foetus animnti. 9. Killing or wounding or severely beating any one. 10. Forging the handwriting or the seal of the officials of the monastery. 11. Mali- ciously obstructing, delaying, or opening written communications from Superiors to subordinates, or subordinates to Superiors. The confessors of RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 319 IV. There must be valid ground for making the reservation, otherwise its effect would tend to ruin rather than to edification. Hence the undue multiplication of reserved cases is not allowed; for many people, on account of the difficulty of getting abso- lution, are likely to remain for a long time in a state of mortal sin, and are deterred from receiving the Sacraments. Clement VIII, therefore, exhorted the bishops to reserve only a few sins, and only those of which the reservation would be conducive to the maintenance of Christian morahty amongst the faithful. ^^ Regulars must know these cases, so that, should one of them occur, they may send the penitent to the Superior or to a confessor possessing the neces- sary faculties for absolution; or that they may, according to circumstances, procure for themselves the necessary faculties for this case. But if a Reg- ular priest confesses to a secular priest or to a priest of another Order (for example, on a journey — see above), it is disputed whether this confessor possesses the power to absolve from the reserved cases of the monasteiy . For Capuchins sojourning out of their monastery the power has been given by Benedict XIV (30 March, 1742) and confirmed by Pius IX (1852), with the understanding, however, that the penitent appears before his Superior or the confessor appointed by him as soon as possible and receives absolution anew. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 575-583. ^^ S. Alph. n. 579 ; Bened. XIV, De Synodo, Lib. V. cp. 5. The Pope says : " Although in this matter no absolute and universal standard can be estab- lished, the general exhortations and decrees which the Sacred Congregations at Rome have issued upon the subject may serve as a guide : — " On January 9, 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars issued the following exhortation to the bishops : In order that the bishops who are empowered to reserve may not unduly burden their subjects and confessors with reserved cases, they are all exhorted to reserve only a few cases, and those only which they believe themselves bound to reserve in the interests of Christian morality, and for the welfare of the souls committed to them, according to the condition and character of each diocese. This exhortation was repeated on Nov. 26. On the same day, the same Congre- gation issued a circular letter to the bishops, in which the following exhor- tations are addressed to them : The bishops should take care that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases to which the greater excommunica- tion is by law attached, absolution for which is reserved to no one, except when the special reservation of such cases appears necessary on account of frequent scandal, or some other urgent ground; nor those cases in which absolution is granted only when restitution has been made, or that performed which the penitents are bound to perform ; nor should they reserve those 320 THE MINISTEB OF THE SACRAMENT V. As reservation is a limitation of jurisdiction, it concerns the confessor directly, and the penitent indirectly. From this it follows that : — 1. In the matter of reservation, strangers are not to be treated according to the reservation of the place where they confess, but according to that in force at their place of residence, exactly in accordance with the principles concerning the juriscUction of the confessors of strangers which we have stated above. It is, therefore, more correct to say that they are absolved by virtue of the jurisdiction which the bishop of the penitent gives, and it is reasonable to assume that the latter does not wish to Umit the jurisdiction of confessors outside his diocese to whom members of his own diocese confess, unless he has reserved a sin in his own diocese. If, therefore, the stranger confesses a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses, — a diocese which is not his own, — the confessor can absolve him, quia absolvit vi ju- risdictionis delegatce ah Episcopo, qui peccatum illud non reservat.^'^ cases which, although great sins, are yet matters of lesser importance, and of frequent occurrence amongst uneducated people ; such as cases of damni-_ Jicatio ifijusta, etc. In reserving sins of the flesh they must proceed with great circumspection on account of the danger of scandal, especially when suspicion might fall upon persons either from their going to extraordinary confessors, or frequently recurring to the bishop. Finally the bishops are admonished to adopt and adhere to that course of action, which, after mature consideration of the customs, natural disposition and tendency of the neigh- borhood and people appears to them to be the best before the Lord. The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council are couched in a similar strain. This Council ordered a bishop who had accumulated too many reserved cases to choose ten or at most twelve of the more considerable offenses, as he thought proper, and to strike out the rest." s'^ Renter, Theol. Mor. De Poenitent. n. 371. Cf. Stotz, Trib. Poenit. Lib. XL Q. 2, § 5, n. 64. Schmalzgrueber, 1. c. Lib. L Tit. 29, n. 31, and many others. This is, in fact, the doctrine which is generally received as valid amongst the older moralists. Many of the later ones, it is true, teach that a stranger cannot be absolved from a sin which is reserved in the dio- cese in which he confesses, falsely assuming that the priest who hears the confession of a penitent coming from a strange diocese is restrained by his own bishop from absolving. See Ballerini, Xot?e ad O^ury, IT. n. 573, and Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c cp. II. De Reservat. Casuum, n. 709 ss. BE SERVED CASES IN GENERAL 321 In practice the rule can be laid down that it is always allowed to absolve a stranger from reserved sins, except when : (1) the sin is reserved in both the dioceses, that of the confessor and that of the stranger, or (2) when the stranger leaves his diocese in order to confess "in fraudem legis/' that is, to evade the judg- ment of his Superior, ^^ which may be assumed to be the case when the sin is of such a nature that it may easily be brought before the forum externum, or may already, in some form, be before it, so that absolution could not be administered even in foro interno without the permission of the bishop. ^^ 2. Although Regulars do not necessarily receive delegated jurisdiction from the bishop but from the Pope, they cannot absolve penitents from sins reserved in the respective dioceses, without having received special faculties from the bishop; the Popes have distinctly so decreed.^" The episcopal reservation is binding also for non-exempted nuns; whether it is so for the exempted, is a matter of controversy. St. Alphonsus ^^ declares both opinions, affirmative and negative, probable. But should a bishop refuse to the confessor of nuns jurisdiction over reserved cases, the absolution of the latter for such sins would undoubt- ss If the strange penitent confesses a sin which is reserved in his own dio- cese but not in that in which he confesses, he can undoubtedly be absolved by a priest of a Religious Order, in virtue of the privilege granted by the Pope to Regulars, Const. "Superna," Clem. X. As regards secular priests, the older theologians maintain that they could not absolve the stranger in this case (they appeal to the Capat Si Episcop. 2 de Poenit. in 6°), while the later theologians unreservedly allow secular priests to participate in the priv- ileges of the priests of Religious Orders; for there exists, they say, a general custom that strangers, in this case also, are absolved by secular priests, and as the bishops approve of this proceeding, the strangers would be valide et lic'tte absolved. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 573, notse ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 403 ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 239, in both cases decides otherwise Princ. Ill ; and Marc, 1. c. n. 1771, Qusesit. III. 89 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 3, Sect. 2 in fine; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 404; Ballerini adds, "«' Episcopus expresae invitus sit." Notse ad Gary, II. n. .573, Q. 5, nota II in fine. Cf. S. Alph. n. 589. 90 Lehmkuhl, 1, c. n. 403. Aertnys teaches otherwise, 1. c. n. 239. 91 L. c. n. 602. 322 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT edly be invalid ; for the bishop gives jurisdiction for the exempted nuns also, as is plain from the words of Gregory XV. ^^ Whether the familiares of Regulars may be absolved without faculties from the bishop depends in general upon the fact whether they are absolved by virtue of episcopal or of Regular jurisdiction. When they are absolved by confessors appointed by the Superior of the Order, they are not subject to episcopal reservation ; but if they are absolved by other confessors (secu- lar priests), it seems that they are subject to episcopal reserva- tion. If, however, it is a question of sins to which the bishop, has attached censure, they do not, as a rule, incur this censure, since they must be treated as strangers. ^^ VI. In order that the objects of the reservation may be at- tained, and this is only possible by a moderate use of the power of reservation, grave sins only are as a rule reserved. Such is the decision of the Council of Trent. ^^ The following conditions are necessary for the valid reservation of a sin : ^^ (1) It must be (and that ex natura rei, in order that it be reserved pleno sensu) a mortal sin, both as regards the internal and the external act ; (2) it must have been carried out completely, not merely at- tempted, wished, begun; and (3) it must be reserved in definite terms. These conditions are by common custom deemed nec- essary. A Superior who reserves is, therefore, supposed to be guided by them unless he has expressly declared himself to the contrary. But Superiors generally attach particular conditions and exceptions to their reservations, which must be gathered from their instructions. The following remarks may serve for more explicit explana- tion: (1) As venial sins are not materia necessaria of absolution, 92 Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 570. «3 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 583; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 403; Aertnys, 1. c. III. 2, n. 239. 94 Sess. XIV. cp. 7. Cf. Deer. S. C. Cone. 26 Xov., 1602. 95 Cf. Balleriiii, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. 11. De Reservatione Casuum, n. 661 ss. RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 323 they cannot be reserved in the strict and full sense. Even if it be per se possible that the Superior can withdraw from a priest the power to absolve sacramentally with regard to a venial sin, he cannot oblige the penitent to procure sacramental absolution from this venial sin. This applies also (2) to really and posi- tively doubtful sins. Indeed, as St. Alphonsus teaches, ^^ a sin which is in any respect doubtful is, according to ecclesiastical custom and the concurrent teaching of the authorities, regarded as not reserved. For, even if any sin which is materia neces- saria of confession might from the very nature of the case be reserved, yet this is not so in practice, and as reservation is a. lex odiosa, it must be interpreted stride. A sin is, therefore, regarded as not reserved : (a) when there is doubt as to its sub- jective gravity, and (h) when there is doubt as to its objective gravity (unless the Superior, for particular motives, has declared as gravis a materia which, ex se, is not positively gravis, in which case it would be necessary to stand by his decision) ; moreover (c), there is no reservation when doubt exists as to whether a positively reserved sin has been committed, or whether it has been committed with the necessary conditions, nor is there res- ervation when doubt exists as to whether a sin really committed is a reserved sin. But in this case {in dubio juris) the sin would be reserved if the confessor merely privato errore doubted the reservation, or if he did not know the sin w^as actually reserved. But in some dioceses the bishops have declared that the con- fession in such a case is valid, and that they do not regard a sin as reserved if the confessor privato errore or ex ignorantia does not believe a sin to be reserved.®^ If, therefore, the confessor supposes a sin to be reserved, he must carefully examine if the sin be interne grave, if it has been committed with full advertence, and with full consent of the will in materia gravi, and if it is also grave quoad actum externum ; for 96 L. c. n. 600. 9^ S. Alph. 1. c. n. 600; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 405; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 242. 324 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT if the external act were not of a grave nature, it would not be reserved although it might be inwardly a great sin. For in- stance, should a person in a heretical frame of mind have said something which neither contained heresy in se, nor, on account of the circumstances, showed an heretical tendency, his sin would not.be reserved.®^ The Church is, in fact, accustomed to reserve only peccata externa, although it cannot be doubted that she can also reserve peccata mere interna, as this class of grave sins is, by divine law, subject to the absolving power of the Church in foro interna. ^^ 3. That a sin should be reserved it must be completum, com- pleted ; that is, completed in the manner implied by the reserva- tion. When, therefore, in the words of the (reserving) law, an external, completed action is specified, — murder, for instance, — and the outward completion is wanting (in this case, the death of the victim), there is no reservation. If, on the other hand, attempting crime, or advising it, are per se reserved, it suffices to have done these acts to make the sin reserved, though the project has not been executed or the sinful advice failed to pro- duce any effect. Frequently such incomplete actions are, how- ever, reserved as accessory only to the principal action. If this latter has been certainly completed, then these accessory actions are reserved. VII. The question: ^^Must the penitent be 'aware that his sin is a reserved one in order that it should be reserved?" is a subject of animated controversy among the theologians.^"^ It is beyond all doubt that bishops can so reserve the sins of their subjects that the reservation holds even when the penitent knows nothing about it. Whether they do reserve in this man- ner without. a formal declaration to that effect, is a debatable 98 S. A]ph. Lib. VI. n. 582, with Siiarez, Lugo, Tauiburini, and others. 99 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582. 100 Cf. Gury-Balleriiii, Nota} ad ii. 571, Q. 1, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. IL nn. 724-735. ^ RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 325 question. St. Alphonsus and not a few other theologians teach that a sin is reserved even when the penitent did not know of the reservation, assigning as sole, or at least chief, reason that the reservation restricts the power of the confessor. ^"^ The fear that Christian and rehgious disciphne might thereby be relaxed is alleged as a second reason. ^^- On the other hand, a very great number of theologians ^°^ teach that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved if the penitent did not know that it was so, when the reservation is poenalis, that is, when it is of a punitive character; but that it is to be regarded as reserved w^hen the reservation is medicinalis, imposed as a deterrent; that is, when it is not a poena medicinalis, which, like the censure, is intended to break the stubbornness of the sinner and deter him from sin, but a lex disciplinaris , by which the Superior himself, or through a specially delegated confessor, wishes to provide a remedy for sin committed. When, there- fore, Lugo denies that reservation is chiefly of a punitive char- acter, and, therefore, holds good even if the sinner did not know of the reservation when he was sinning, we agree with him and with Lehmkuhl.'*'* 101 This reason is plainly not a valid one, since all theologians, including the opponents of this view, admit that reservation directly limits jurisdiction; these latter, however, declare that certain circumstances are required to make a sin reserved, and that it is questionable if the knowledge of the reserva- tion is such a ch'cumstance or not. 102 This is not convincing; for as soon as the penitent confesses a reserved sin, the confessor will tell him of the reservation, and thus a check will be put upon the relaxation of morality for the future ; for the sins that have been already committed, neither one opinion nor the other can offer any preventive remedy. 103 The Theol. of Salamanca, Tr. 18, cp. 6, n. 12 ; Lugo, De Poen. Disp. 20, n. 11; Sanchez, De Matrim. 1. 9, Disp. 32, nn. 17, 18; Sporer, De Poenit. n. 735 ; Mazzotta, Tract. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 2, § 2, and many others ; see Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. 10* L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. This may at least constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by positive evidence that the 326 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the censure is considered not reserved when the penitent did not know of the reservation, as only he incurs a censure who knew of it and yet committed the act to which it is attached. Concerning the Papal reservations, at least, unanimity upon this point prevails among the theologians, as these reservations exist chiefly on account of the censure. With regard to episcopal cases no unanimity exists. Here, as Suarez rightly teaches, we must have regard for the circumstances ; that is, for the terms of the reservation, for custom, and for the power of the person who reserves, etc.^^^ But if the penitent knew of the censure and did not know of the reservation, the theory of some few theolo- gians that, in this case, also the censure is not reserved, is rightly regarded as lax and altogether improbable. 43. The Papal Reserved Cases. In the year 1869 Pius IX issued his celebrated Bull " Apos- tolicce Sedis vioderationi,^^ the object of which was to reduce the number of censures imposed at different times, to explain them, and to bring their wording to such form that uncertainty and doubt on the part of the faithful and of confessors might cease. By virtue of his apostolical power he therein decreed that of all the censures ever imposed, whether excommunication bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of its existence. Till the Liter con- troversy, however, it was always the general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by one who did not know of it ; this is testified by many authors. AVe must, therefore, assume that the legislator so under- stood his law. But if, with the knowledge of the bishop and withont pro- test on his part, it he anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one wlio does not know of the reservation, this mav be consid- ered a sufficiently valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are ignorant of the reservation. Lehinkuhl, 1. c ; Gury, Ed. Katisb. ad n. 571. 105 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 580, .ISl, dub. 2; Lacroix 1. c. n. lOU ; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. n. 571. THE PAPAL BESERVED CASES 327 or suspension or interdict, only those should henceforth legally remain in force which were explicitly introduced into or quoted in his constitution; that they should derive their validity not only from the authority of the ancient canons, but also from this constitution itself, just as though they were there for the first time imposed. This Bull possesses force and validity for the whole Church from the moment when it was promulgated ad valvas Ecclesice S. Salvatoris}^^ The Bull deals with censures ^^^ only, and these are either Excommunications,^^^ Suspensions, or Interdicts/'' /. Excommunicationes speciali modo Romano Pontifici reser- vatce. The excommunication spec, modo reserved to the Pope is incurred by : ^^' 106 Cf. Archive fiir Kirchenrecht (1871), XXY. 148. The other sources of the Papal leserved cases are the Council of Trent, of which the censures still remain in force which were directly imposed by this Council and are not touched by the Bull " Apost. Sed.," and those Papal decrees which have been issued for the imposition of censures since the appearance of the Bull " Apost. Sed.," that is, after the year 1869. 10'^ The two Papal cases spoken of above in which the sin is reserved, are, therefore, not quoted in it, but are in force. 10^ They are (1) those which, in an especial manner (speciali modo) are reserved to the Pope, (2) those which are simply reserved to the Pope, (3) those w^hich are reserved to the bishops, and (4) those which are reserved to no one. The two first classes are to be kept apart from each other, for a person possessing the faculty to absolve from the Papal cases does not nec- essarily possess the faculty to absolve from the cases which are speciali modo reserved, if this addition is not expressly made. By virtue of the jus com- mune (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXIY. cp. 6) it belongs to the bishop to absolve from the second class if the cases are secret. '^^^ Jan. Bucceroni (S. J.), Commentar. de Constitut. Ap. Sed. (Romse, 1888) ; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. Tract. I. II. III. ; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. TI. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 920 ss. ; Avanzini, De Constit. Ap. Sed. Commentarii (Rom., 1872) ; Heiner, Die Kirchlichen Censuren. Paderb. 1884, S. 52 ff. ; Kirchenlexikon (2. Aufl.) Apost. Sed. Vol. I. 1, 112.5 if. 110 There are twelve of them in the Bull " Ap. Sed." which were all, with the exception of the tenth, contained in the Bull " Csenas," but not all eodem modo : to these is added the thirteenth ex Constit. Pii IX, Romanus Ponti- fex, 28 Aug., 1873. 328 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 1. All who have fallen from the Christian faith (apostates) and all heretics, of whatever name and sect they may be, as well as their adherents, supporters, and all their defenders in general. As the expression "Omnes a Christiana fide apostatas^^ is of general application, not only are all those Christians who have embraced Judaism or heathenism comprised in it, but also the so-called freethinkers who wholly give themselves up to unbelief, and have openly renounced all reHgion ; also rationalists, spiritu- alists, materialists, pantheists, deists, atheists, illuminati, those who profess indifferentism in religion or a merely natural reli- gion, and other unbelievers of similar character, who belong to the order of Freemasons or adopt the principles of that order, even when, here and there, some of its members surround them- selves with a halo of religion /^^ In order that the confessor may know who incurs excommuni- cation under the expression Omnes et singulos hoereticos he must form an accurate conception of heresy, which demands: (a) error formalis, a conscious and voluntary denial joined to per- tinacia, (5) the denial of an article of faith promulgated by the Church, (c) the external expression of such denial, (d) a knowl- edge of the penalty incurred."^ If any one of these marks is absent, there is no excommunication. In connection with this, Renninger remarks : ^^^ ^'At a time when, in our social life, the waves of unbelief run so high, prudence, dehberation, and knowledge are in an especial manner necessary to him who has the care of souls, that hasty judgment may be avoided. How- ever mindful he may be of his office as teacher, he must never forget the demands of Christian charity; he should never let himself be drawn into disputes which lead to nothing, still less should he provoke them; he should never be carried away 111 Cf. Primer, Moraltheol. p. 121 ; Heiiier, a. a. O. § 53, p. 53. 112 Cf. S. Thorn, ir. II. Q. 11, art. 1; Suarez, De virt. Theol. Disp. 19, Sects. 1 and 5. 113 Pastoral Theology, a. a. O. § 57, p. 158. THE PAPAL EESEMVED CASES 329 by violence. Positive assent to a dogma he ^hould only demand when his office forces him to do so. He should, especially in the confessional, take for granted that he who believes in the Church, beheves also in her dogmas. He should not put tempt- ing questions. He should remember that many howl with the wolves without really knowing w^hat the howding is about, being merely anxious not to lose the nimbus of hberalism. He should make the way of those who are returning as smooth as is possible without violating the laws of the Church. The retractation extra confessionale, which cannot be dispensed with, may often be clothed in a form which is not wounding to self-respect, and is yet valid. Intimations to this effect have been forwarded in a confidential manner to their clergy by dif- ferent Ordinaries, who were moved by a judicious zeal for the salvation of souls." To this class belong also the "Credentes," that is, those who give credence and who — without formally professing heretical doctrine, without pertinacia, or without sufficient knowledge, pose as heretics — openly profess assent to a heretical doctrine by word, sign, or action explicitly or implicitly, in a general way. To these also belong the " Re~ ceptores,'' those who afford to apostates or heretics, but only as apostates and heretics (quatenus hcBretici et non ex. gr. qvxx fures sunt) shelter and receive or conceal them in order to protect them from punishment for heresy; to these also belong the fautores, those who in any way render assistance (per omissionem or per commissionem) to apostates or heretics. Finally, we may mention the defensores, those who, in any way, by force or by cimning, by word or by writing, protect heretics as such, or their doctrines or their books. 2. All those who, without permission of the Holy See, know- ingly read, print, keep, or in any w^ay defend the books of the above-mentioned apostates and heretics, if the defense of heresy is the subject-matter of these books; as, also, the readers, printers, possessors, or defenders of those books which, by a 330 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Papal document (Encyclical, Brief, or Bull) are, by name (that is, by statement of the title of the book), forbidden. (a) The Readers. Reading here must be understood as a moral not merely a physical act, when, for example, the reader understands nothing of the language ; ^" in this kind of reading must be included causing a book to be read to one (not merely listening, however sinful the latter may be) since, where there is eadem ratio also eadem est juris dispositio.^^'^ Moreover, in order to incur the censure, it is necessary that a part sufficient to con- stitute a mortal sin, about a page, be read ; ^^® that the reachng should take place scienter, that is, with knowledge that the book has been written by an apostate or heretic ; finally, it is requisite that it should defend heresy and that the reading or keeping should take place without authorization from the Holy See. (h) The readers of hooks in the proper sense of the word, be they written"^ or printed, not of merely printed matter, as brochures, pam- phlets, newspapers, periodical sheets, etc., although the reading of such products of the day may often be, and very often is, more dangerous to faith and morals than the reading of a bad book, and there is no doubt that the reading and keeping of such- literature is always a great sin, being an offense against the natural law."^ (c) The Retinentes, that is, all those who know- ingly retain in their possession for some time, either in their 11-1 Cf . Suarez, De Fide, 20, 2, 18. i^^ Regiila juris in YI. 116 The gracitas materice is here to be estimated both ex re qme tractatur and ex quantitate : if the exposition or defense of a heretical doctrine is read, the half, or the third, of a page suffices. 11'^ Some authors, as d'Annibale and Melata, restrict the censures to printed books. 11^ But if these lesser publications are parts of a book of the same con- tents, they are (subject to the above-mentioned conditions) in the category of forbidden books, especially if they are bound together in one volume.. Periodical publications, therefore, of which every separate number is regarded as a part of the whole yearly issue, fall under the reserved censure; but not newspapers, as with these there is no question of parts belonging to each other, each separate number being regarded as complete in itself. . (Act. S. Sed. Vol. YI. fasc. 5, p. 9, Append. 3, p. 183.) THE PAPAL UESERVEB CASES 331 own homes or in that of a stranger, in their own name or in that of another, a book forbidden in the manner above specified. {d) The Imprimentes, that is, all those who directly cooperate or assist, as causce morales or physicce, in printing: authors, publishers, printers, (e) The Defendentes, that is, those who defend books which are forbidden in the sense specified above. ^^^ Accordingly he does not incur this excommunication : (1) who only reads or keeps a few separate leaves of such a book or periodicals, etc. ; (2) who reads perfunctorily ; (3) who reads from necessity, to be able to refute a heretic, and was not able previously to procure the necessary permission ; (4) if his reading is only a phys- ical act, without his being able to understand anything; (5) if he keeps a book for a short time only, for example, a day or two, or only till he has obtained the permission requested, or if he has no opportunity of giving the book to the Superior.^^" 119 It remains to be remarked that the ten rules of the Index itself are not touched by this ordinance of the Bull, but that the Excomm. lat. sent. attached at the end of the regul. X falls away, as it was not directly attached by the Council of Trent itself, but by Pius IV. Consequently the reading and keeping of heretical books, or of such as are condemned by a decree of the Congregation of the Index remains, indeed, still forbidden in the future, but the punishment of the now specially reserved excommunication is incurred only in two cases: (a) when the author of the book is an apostate or a heretic, and the book, moreover, not only contains heresy, but ex pro- fesso defends it, and (6) when the latter, be the author who he may, is, with exact specification of the title, forbidden by a Papal Brief, or a Bull, or an Encyclical Letter. Although the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII (25 Jan., 1897) has considerably mitigated the prohibitions of Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, in regard to the reading and propagating of noxious literature, nevertheless the warnings against the intellectual and moral dangers of bad books, which the Index Congre- gation addresses to Catholics, retain their full force. The confessor should of course remember that the censures attached to the reading of forbidden books are applicable only where there is a conscious violation of the prohi- bition; furthermore, that not only ignorance, but also a general consuetudo lessening the danger to faith or morals, constitute a mitigating circumstance which demands wise discrimination on the part of confessors who apply the laws of the Index. Few Catholics in English-speaking countries know what books are on the Index, and that fact itself is a reason for moderate judg- ment. 1^0 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. nn. 295. 284, 292. 332 THE MINISTER OF THE ISACRAMENT 3. Schismatics and all who obstinately refuse obedience to the reigning Pope. 4. All those who, whatever their position may be, or the dignity they may hold, appeal from the injunctions or orders of the reigning Popes to a future general Council ; moreover the aiders, advisers, and favorers of such. 5. All those who kill, maim, strike, take prisoner, or keep prisoner, or persecute in hostile manner cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops. Papal legates, or nuncios; those who expel them from their dioceses, or lands belonging to them, or estates in their possession ; as those also who order or sanc- tion such acts, or give help, advice, or encouragement in their execution. 6. Those who directly or indirectly hinder the execution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and who, for this purpose {ad hoc),^^^ apply to the secular power, as well as those who cause or publish the commands of such persons, or afford help, advice, or coun- tenance in such proceeding. The ecclesiastical juridical power is the lawful competence of the Church to govern her subjects in respect to everything that belongs to their eternal welfare. This power is exercised in foro externa and interno. The Exer- citium ordinis (consecrare, henedicere, etc.) is to be distinguished from the Exercitium jurisdidionis. 7. Those who directly or indirectly compel secular judges to cite ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to ca- nonical regulations (unless it should be the case that ecclesiasti- cal regulations, either general or particular (Concordats) allow this), as well as those who issue laws or regulations against the freedom or rights of the Church. This canon refers to condi- tions which, though still extant in certain parts of Europe, have hardly any force in the United States and other missionary 121 This does not add a new condition for incurring the censure leveled against the impedientes exercitium Jurisdictiojiis, but only introduces another class of the same offenders (as Avanzitii and Heiner, p. 87, assume). THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 333 countries; it protects the privilegium fori of clerics, and in a general way the freedom and rights of the Church/^^ 8. Those who apply to the secular power to prevent the execu- tion of decrees or of any acts proceeding from the Holy See or its legates or delegates, as also those who directly or indirectly actually prevent the promulgation or execution of such, or w^ho, on account of these decrees or acts, injure or threaten others (agents, mandatories). 9. The forgers of Papal documents, the promulgators or subscribers of such forged Papal documents ilitterarum Apos- tolicarum etiam in forma Brevis ac supplicationum gratiam vet justitiam concernentium) . 10. Ahsolventes complices in peccato turpi, etc.; see § 46. 11. Those who usurp or sequestrate (jurisdictionem) rights of jurisdiction (secular rights appertaining to the Church by virtue of any legal titles, for instance, fiscal rights, etc.), the goods or revenues of ecclesiastics, which belong to them ratione suarum ecclesiarum aut heneficiorum (that is by virtue of their ecclesias- tical position). Mere thieves and even robbers of Church property, accord- ingly, do not come under the censure here pronounced, as they cannot be classed under the definition either of usurpantes or sequestrantes (cf. S. C. Inq. 9 March, 1870), nor does the pur- chasing by contract of such goods from usurpers come under it. But the latter is subject to the Tridentine censure, the censure reserved simply to the Pope (cf. S. C. Off. 8 July, 1874). Whether 122 As to the disputed question whether one is included amongst the cogentes who denounces and prosecutes a cleric before the civil court, so that the judge, in consequence of this denunciation, is officially compelled to summon the accused cleric, and pronounce sentence upon him according to the provisions of existing law, we refer the reader to Heiner, who discusses this point. According to him, the sententla communior et fere covtmunis teaches that such a one falls under the censure, while the negative opinion is not improbable. Moreover, a declaration of the S. C. Inq. 23 Jan., 1886, favors this latter opinion. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VII. Tract. 1, n. 82; d'Annibale (Melata) Manuale Theol. :\Ior. p. 260. 334 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT the property of monasteries is included, is a matter of contro- versy; the property of pious foundations is not included. The estates of monasteries fall under the Tridentine censure. 12. All those who, themselves or through others, attack towns, territories, or villages, belonging to the Roman Church, destroy or occupy them; as also those who arrogate to themselves supreme administrative power in these places, disturb or stop the execution of such power, and those who afford help, advice, and countenance in such work. 13. Accordingly, the canons and dignitaries of vacant cathe- dral churches, and, in the absence of a Chapter, all those who are competent to appoint a vicar-capitular, or to govern the bereaved diocese themselves, incur the excommunication spe- cially reserved to the Pope, as well as suspension of the revenues of their benefices, if they presume to admit a bishop elected by the Chapter, or one presented by the secular power, for the government and administration of the vacant church before these persons have accredited themselves by submitting the Papal documents bearing upon their appointments, — and that for so long as the Apostolic See may think proper to keep this suspension in force; moreover, those chosen or nominated and presented for vacant churches who presume to undertake the government and administration of these churches ex concessione et translatione, de qua supra (that is, before this submitting of credentials), as well as all those who have obeyed, or given help, advice, or countenance to such acts, cujuscumque status, con- ditionis, prcE-eminentice et dignitatis fuerint. To this is added: When any one of the above-named persons is invested with the dignity of a bishop, he incurs the penalty of suspension ah exer- citio Pontificalium and of the Interdict ah ingressu Ecclesia^, which overtakes him ipso facto ahsque ulla declaratione, and is reserved to the Apostolic See.^^^ i'-28 Cf. Heiner, a. a. O. S. 124 ff. ; Gury-Ballerini, II. ii. 973. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 88. THE PAPAL BE SERVED CASES 335 14. The so-called ''civil government pastors," appointed by the State, qui suffragante populo ad parochi sive vicarii ofjicium electi audeant sive ecclesice sive jurium ac honormn prcetensam pos- sessionem arripere atque obire munia ecclesiastici ministerii, incur the same excommunication, in accordance with a solemn decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (13 May, 1874) /'* //. Excommunicationes latce sententice Romano Pontifici sim- pliciter reservatcE. There are eighteen of these, to which are added one of the Council of Trent, and another ex declaratione S. C. Inq.: — 1. All who publicly or privately teach or defend tenets which are condemned by the Holy See under pain of excommunicatio latcB sententice, as also those who teach and uphold that the prac- tice of asking the penitent the name of the accomplice is allowed. To the propositions, the teaching and defending of which involves the above censure, do not belong such tenets as are simply condemned by the Pope, as those included in the Sylla- bus, for example, or which are interdicted under other censures and penalties. 2. Those who, incited by the devil (suadente diaholo), lay violent hands on clerics, or rehgious, unless the power of abso- lution is accorded to the bishops or others, either jure or privilegio. The words suadente diaholo imply that there is question of a grave sin. This censure is, accordingly, not in- curred if the percussio take place either oh legitimam sui defen- sionem, vel oh justam suhditi Clerici correptionem, vel ex joco aut casu fortuito vel ex suhita ira, vel ex ignorantia that the person struck is a cleric. On the other hand, the censure extends also to impuheres and the efjicaciter cooperantes}^^ 124 Heiner, a. a. O. S. 127 ff. 12^ Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 945. The bishop can jure absolve, if the percussio was levis, etiam puhlica (thus the vicars-general also can absolve), and when the percussio., no matter whether enormis, gravis, or levis, is a delictum occul- tum. The Prcelati regulares can, ex privilegio^ absolve their subordinates from this censure. 336 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 3. Duellists, even when they only challenge to a duel, or accept the challenge, and all accomplices and abettors. The censures attached to the duel are, therefore, incurred by: — (1) the duellists themselves, whether the duel takes place with or without w^itnesses> whether wounding follows or not; (2) the challengers to a duel, even when the challenge is not accepted; (3) he who accepts the challenge, even w^hen no duel takes place, and w^hen the parties to the proposed duel do not meet; (4) the seconds, those w^ho accompany the duellists, and in fact all those who afford countenance and assistance to them, and w-ho, by advice, or in any other way, make them- selves accomplices; (5) the spectators w^ho to that end, and of set purpose, repair to the scene of the encounter, as such onlooking is a further incitement to the encounter; (6) the persons in authority w^ho permit this, and, as far as in them lies, do not forbid it. 4. Those who belong to the sect of the Freemasons or Car- bonari or to other sects of the kind (Fenians in America and Ireland) ^^® who agitate either openly or in secret against the Church or the lawful government, as w^ell as all w^ho in any way countenance these sects, or do not denounce their secret heads and leaders (to the local ecclesiastical superiors) when they clearly realize their duty of denouncing. Political partisans, so long as they employ only the means which 'modern public law places at their disposal in their endeavors to realize their ideal of the future social state, do not incur this censure. 5. The violators of the rights of the sanctuary. 6 and 7. The violators of the inclosure in monasteries and convents. Only the violation of the so-called Papal inclosure, that is, the inclosure prescribed by general ecclesiastical law to 126 By a decree of the S. O. 20 Aug., 1894, the American societies of Odd Fellows, Good Templars, and Knights of Pythias were condemned ; v. Riicceroni, Suppleinentiim bibliothec?e; Ferraris, s. y. Sectarii; S. C. Inq. 12 Jan., 1870. Cf. Gen. Index Ecclesiastical Review. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 337 the Orders with solemn vows, brings with it the excommunica- tion here mentioned; not the violation of that inclosure which is observed in the more recent Congregations of men or women either on account of their rules, or of a particular vow, or also in consequence of a regulation of the local bishop. Not only do the violators of the inclosure incur the excommunication, but all, Superiors or others, who, without lawful reasons, permit entrance. 8, 9, and 10 refer to simony : real (8) ; confidential (9) ; in the bestowal of benefices, and real on entering a Religious Order (10). 11 and 12 are directed against the abuse of spiritual favors for the purpose of unworthy gain, which may take place by procuring for one's self: (11) material profit in the dispensing of indulgences and other spiritual graces, or (12) by collecting Mass stipends at a higher price, and having these Masses said in places where a lower fee is customary. While number 11 concerns only the "inferiores Episcopis/' number 12 applies to all collectors (colligentes) who procure profit to themselves by the above-mentioned proceedings. 13. Those who alienate and mortgage lands belonging to the Roman Church. 14. Members of Religious Orders who, without permission of the local parish priest, presume to administer to clerics or lay- men the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist as viaticum; except in case of necessity. 15. Those who, without lawful permission, remove from the holy cemeteries and catacombs of the city of Rome and its territories, relics (therefore, only remains of saints, corpora vel partes corporis, etiam in minima particula, qu bus induhia mar- tyrii signa adjuncta sunt; cf. S. R. C. 10 Dec, 1863), and those who help and countenance them. 16. Those who are associated in crimine criminoso with a per- son whom the Pope has, by name, excommunicated, that is, 338 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT who, by helping or countenancing, take part in the crime on account of which the originator was, by mention of name, ex- communicated by the Pope. 17. Clerics who knowingly and without compulsion associate in divinis (that is, in the Church's offices) with one by name excommunicated by the Pope, and permit such to participate in divine service. In order, therefore, that this excommunication be incurred, the communicatio must be : (a) with a person by name excom- municated by the Pope; (6) knowingly and (c) voluntarily. According to the general and unanimous explanation the et is not to be taken as disjunctive but conjunctive, so that the '' communicantes in divinis/' with a person by name excommuni- cated, and the "ipsos in officiis recipientes^' are to be interpreted as members of a sentence which necessarily belong to each other.^" " Divi7ia'' and '^ officia'' are merely synonymous terms. 18. Those who presume, without proper permission, etiam quovis prcetextu, to absolve from the excommunications reserved speciali modo to the Pope — that is, extra casmn legitimi im- pedimenti eiindi Romam. 19.-. Missionaries who quocunque modo sive per se sive per alios engage in commerce in Indiis Orientalihus et America, and those Superiors who have not censured their subordinates ofiFending on this head. Ex authent. Declarat. S. C. Inq. 4 Dec, 1872, a Pio IX approbata. 20. Refers to clerics and laymen quacunque dignitate etiam imperiali aut regali who unlawfully appropriate jurisdictions, interests, rights, also fiefs and hereditary tenures, incomes, usufruct, or revenues from any church or benefice, from the montes pietatis and other pia loca. (This is an extension of the number 11 above, in section I of the Censures.) ^^^ 127 Heiner, a. a. O. S. 226 ; Aertnys, 1. c. 103. 128 Cf. Trid. Sess. XXII. cp. 11 de ref. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 339 ///. Excommunicationes Ordinariis Reservatce }'^^ 1. Clerics in major Orders, monks, and nuns, who, after hav- ing taken the solemn vow of chastity (not the simple) dare to contract marriage, as also all who attempt to perform the mar- riage rite over the above-named persons — such marriage being of itself invalid. 2. All who cause abortion/^^ 3. Those who knowingly make use of forged Papal docu- ments, or lend assistance in this crime. IV, Excommunicationes non Reservatce. 1. Those who order or insist with force that notorious here- tics or those by name excommunicated, or by name interdicted, should be buried with the rites of the Church. 2. All those who injure or threaten the inquisitors, accusers, witnesses, or other servants of the Holy Office in the perform- ance of their duty, or who steal or destroy the official documents of this Office, or who afford help, advice, or countenance in any one of these actions. 3. This excommunication falls upon the vendors (alienantes) or receivers {recipere prcesumentes) of Church property who ^29 By the name " Ordinarii" are to be understood not only the bishops and capitular-vicars, but also vicars-general, ProRlati regulares and others who possess episcopal jurisdiction. The confessarii regulares also can absolve from this class of excommunication inforo conscientice. Pius IX has* only revoked the privileges to absolve a caslbus R. Pontijici reservatis ; ex sententia prohabiliori. Regulars can, ?;i complurium prlvileyiorum a S. Sede concessorum, absolve from the censures reserved by the common law to the bishops. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. 11. 99, and De Privil. n. 100. Those censures are excepted which the Ordinaries have reserved to themselves. 1^° It is veru>< ahorlus which is here punished, that is,_/lE^u.s innnaturi fjeclU) adeo ut mors ipsius mde secuta sit, therefore, not the partus prcematurus foetus vitalis, when procured for just motives. Pius IX abolished the old distinction hetween foetus animalus et inanimatus. It is the procura'io abortus, moreover, that is punished, that is, per se sive per alias interpositas personas — studiose or ex industria. The censure is, therefore, not incurred by one who employed the means without the effect resulting. Compare Heiiier, a. a. O. S. 243 ff. ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 109; Theol. Mor. Lib. TIL n. 192; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. L Lib. IL Tract. II. n. 810 ss. ; P. II. Lib. II. Tract. L n. 970. 340 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT have not obtained permission of the Pope in the prescribed form. 4. Those who omit to denounce a soHciting confessor (§ 45). False denunciation constitutes a Papal reservation without censure. To these excommunications are added Suspensions and Inter- dicts : — The Suspensions latce sententice simply reserved to the Pope, refer to Ordination which takes place by infraction of definite ecclesiastical regulations, and to religious who are expelled from their Orders. The Interdicts latce sententice affect universities, colleges, and chapters, whatever name they may bear, who appeal to a future general Council from the regulations or orders of the ruling Pope of the time, or who knowingly cause religious service to be held in interdicted places, as also those who admit persons excommunicated by name to religious service, to the holy Sacraments, or to burial with Church service, and that till the ecclesiastical Superior whose orders have been disregarded has received satisfaction. 44. Absolution of Reserved Sins. I. All those who can reserve sins may, of their ordinary power {ordinaria potestate), also absolve from them; therefore : (1) those who have reserved, (2) their successors in the same office, and (3) their Superiors. With delegated authority (potestate delegata) those can absolve who have received a special faculty from the person reserving, or his successor or Superior, and that only within the limits com- prised in the power conferred. II. The bishops and their delegates can, according to common law, absolve (1) all penitents from the secret Papal reserves, with the exception of those which are, speciali modo, reserved ABSOLUTION OF EE SERVED SINS 341 to the Pope ; ^^^ and (2) according to the general teaching of theologians, which is based upon the ecclesiastical law itself, those penitents who are prevented from going to the Pope, from aZZ Papal reserves, secret or public/^^ According to the general interpretation of the Council of Trent, and general custom, the bishop can transfer to another, by free choice {vicarius ad id specialiter deputandus), his powers of absolving from the Papal reserves under the specified condi- tions. Some bishops, especially those in distant parts, not infrequently receive, through the quinquennial or triennial fac- ulties, greater powers over cases which are, speciali modo, re- served to the Pope. But whether they can also transfer these powers and how, — whether generally or only in separate cases, — must be gathered from the document by which these privi- leges are conferred. Formerly Regulars could, by virtue of a perpetual privilege, absolve from all cases reserved, ordinario modo, to the Pope; this privilege has been withdrawn by the constitution " Apo."^- tolicce Sedis.'' ''' III. If a priest who is not empowered to absolve from reserved cases hears a reserved sin in the confessional, he must, as a rule, refer the penitent to the Superior, or to another priest delegated by hi^. But if the confession must of necessity be made just at that time, and if there is any obstacle in the way of going to another, the unauthorized confessor can absolve directly from the non-reserved, and, consequently, indirectly from the reserved 131 Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. de ref. cp. 6, "Liceat" and the Constit. Apos- tolicse Sedis Pii TX. 132 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. n. 84. Corpus jur. can. cp. '' Eos qui " de sent. excomm. in 60. Whether bishops and others possess still greater powers, is to be gathered from the special faculties which the Apostolic See may have granted them. 133 Cf. Ballerini Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De Reservat. cas. n. 772 ss. ; Lehnikuiil, 1. c. n. 411, ad II. Concerning the privilege of the Mendicants as regards the absolution fi'om the Casus Episcopal., and from the Casus qui Episcopis tantuiii a jure resercatur, see Ballerini, 1. c. 842 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT sins. But the penitent must confess, in addition to reserved sins, others which are not reserved, or confess again a sin al- ready confessed, in order that the materia Sacramenti may not be wanting. It is, however, afterwards the duty of the penitent — if it is possible to him — to confess the reserved sin to the Superior, or to a priest designated by him, or, as the case may be, to the same confessor after the latter has received power to absolve from the sin in question, in order that he may be directly absolved from the reserved sins.^^^ 134 Formerly, in accordance with the prescription of the canon law, the teaching universally held was that (a) one who is prevented during a very long time, or always (live years or longer) from going to the Superior or his delegate, is absolved by a subordinate priest without any further obligation, and (/>) one who is prevented for a long time (from six months to five years) is absolved, with the duty of presenting himself before the Supe- rior when the obstacle is removed, wiiile one who is prevented only for a short time may not be absolved from reserved sins; but if necessity urges hie et nunc, absolution for the non-reserved sins can be given him, so that the reserved sins may be indirectly blotted out, the obligation of ob- taining absolution from the reservation or censure from the Superior or dele- gated priest remaining in force. This theory was based upon the assumption that he who was not able to appear before the Pope was not bound to employ any other means of communication (a letter, for example) unless this were expressly prescribed by the legislator. Moreover, on July 8, 1860, in an- swer to the question : Are penitents who are prevented from going to Kome in person bound to seek absolution from reserved cases at least by letter or through the agency of another? the S. C. Officii replied that the decision of approved authorities, especially of St. Alphonsus of Liguori, should be ad- hered to. Now the latter teaches (Lib. VII. n. 89) as sententia prohahilior et communis, that one is not bound to this. On June 23, 1886, another line of conduct in this matter was prescribed by the S. Officium. The questions there put were : 1. May one positively adopt and act upon the teaching that the absolution from reserved sins and censures, also from those speciali modo reserved to the Pope, devolves upon the bishop, or upon any approved priest, when the penitent finds himself unable to go to the Pope? 2. If the answer to this question be in the negative, is one obliged to communicate by letter with the Prefect of the Penitentiary with regard to all cases reserved to the Pope, if the bishop has not a special Indult (the hour of death ex- cepted), in order to receive the faculty to absolve? To these questions the above-named Congregation returned the following answer sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope (30 June, 188G) : Ad I. With regard to the practice ABSOLUTION OF RESERVED SINS 343 But the confessor can also apply to the Superior and fronri him obtain powers for this special case to absolve the penitent from the reserved sin; this must, of course, be done with the most careful and strict observance of the secrecy of the confessional. Indeed, it is highly to be recommended in our days that the confessor should not refer the penitent to the Superior or to another priest with the requisite powers, but should rather him- self procure from the Superior the necessary powders to absolve the penitent, even when the latter has no long or difficult journey to make in order to reach the Superior. For, if the peni- tent goes himself, the duty of confessing his sins again is incum- bent upon him, and to confess such a sin again requires from most penitents great self-command : and there would be fear of his of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the appearance of the apostolical constitution of Pius IX which begins with the words '• ApostoUcce Sedi ," Negative. Ad II. Affirmative ; but in the really more urgent cases in which the absolution cannot be deferred without danger of great scandal or dis- grace, as to which the confessor is answerable to his own conscience, the absolution can be administered, injunctis